The image of an Ottoman city: imperial architecture and urban experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th centuries 9789004124547, 9789047404224

Citation preview

THE IMAGE OF AN OTTOMAN CITY

Politics, Society and Economy EDITED BY

SURAIYA FAROQHI AND Haut INALCIK Advisory Board

Fikret Adanir - Idris Bostan - Amnon Cohen - Cornell Fleischer Barbara Flemming : Alexander de Groot - Klaus Kreiser Hans Georg Majer - Iréne Mélikoff - Ahmet Yasar Ocak Abdeljelil Temimi - Gilles Veinstein - Elizabeth Zachariadou

VOLUME 33 NEGI yD

> ¢ Key 4

5¢Was S legs:

THE IMAGE OF AN

OTTOMAN Cry Imperial Architecture and Urban Experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th Centuries

BY

HEGHNAR ZEITLIAN WATENPAUGH

2 ae, 2= Wet Sp aa68>.S

BRILL LEIDEN : BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Watenpaugh, Heghnar Zeitlian. The image of an Ottoman city : imperial architecture and urban experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th centuries / by Heghnar Zeitlian Watenpaugh. p. cm. — (The Ottoman Empire and its heritage, ISSN 1380-6076 ; v. 33) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12454-3 (hardback) 1. Architecture, Ottoman-—Syria—Aleppo. 2. Architecture, Islamic—Syria—Aleppo. 3. Architecture and state—Syria—Aleppo—History—1 6th century. 4. Architecture and state—Syria—Aleppo—History—17th century. 5. Aleppo (Syria)—Buildings, structures, etc. J. Vitle. I. Series. NA1489.7.A43W37 2004 720°.9569 10903 1—dc22 2004050057

ISSN 1380-6076 ISBN 90 04 12454 3 © Copynght 2004 by Koninklyke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklyke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,

Martinus Nyhoff Publishers and VSP All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Authonzation to photocopy items for internal or personal use 1s granted by Brill provided that the abpropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, Rosewood Drive 222, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

for my mother, Sona Simonian Xeithan, and my sister, Garine Keitlian My first teachers

| BLANK PAGE

CONTENTS

Last of Illustrations oo... ee eeeesssneereesneeceeseecsssteeeeserseeesssneeess XI

Abbreviations and Frequently Cited Sources oo... | XV Note on Dates and Transliteration ............eeeessceeeeeeeerrreeeeee | XVI Acknowledgments —.....ecccceeeesssccesseccceeeesesseecessseeesssstseeseessstteeeessnee XIX

Chapter One Introduction oo... eeesceeeeseceseeceeeseeeeeeneereeeeens J Situating Aleppo oo... ceeeeseecesseececesneceeesseeeeeseeeesssnceeeeseneereesnnees I

Imperial Architecture in the Center and the Periphery .... 6

Patronage and the Production of Space ou... eee 10 Trends in Previous Scholarship 0... eeeeeseseeeeeeeettetereeeeeee 1D Sources and Method ........eeeesseccessecesseesteesteeseseterssrerssseeeee 21 ,

Ottomanization and the Layering of Cities... eee 27

Chapter Two The Aleppine Context oe = SL The Late Mamltik City oe eeeeeeeseeeeesreeetsteetserenene SL The First Ottoman Signs oe. eee eeeesseecessssrereeeesteceeeessee OO

The Character of Architectural Patronage oo... eee 43 Earlest Ottoman Endowments —.........eesseeessesteeeeeessrreeeeenene 46

The Urban Development of the Sixteenth Century .......... 50 Trade and the Rise of Aleppo o.oo... eeeeeeeeseeeereeeeesnneee OF

Chapter Three The Construction of a Monumental Corridor: The Great Complexes of the Sixteenth Century oo. eeeeeseeccessceceesesteeceessseeeessecssseeesestsstesssttsseseessseeteesseee — 60

The Khusruwiyya Complex oe eeeeeeeseeeeesereeeetsnrereesseee 60 Date and Architect 0... eeeeeeeseesereeeceestteeeerettsstteeeeeeee = OL FOL woe eeeeeeeeceeessceecesesssneecessecsssneeeeerersssseesessssesseesereesses — OB

Spatial Order... eeeeessseeeessseeesseeeceeeeessesesesesssssssttereesesssne — OD Patron oo... eeeeeeeecceesssneceecceseseceeceseeeesssneceeeecsssteeeeeesssssssseeeeeeenss FL FUNCTIONS ooo. eee eeeeeseecececceeceesencecceaeececceteserssecececeeseteesssssssstes JO

The ‘Adiliyya Complex o..cccccccccecsecsesscssesesessesetseseteetensenee 77 Date and Patron oie. eeeeececeecceeseeesseeececssneceeerersesssreeeeenee TT Urban Gontext oo... eeeesseececeeceeeesssneeeesssssstteeeeessssesteree TY FUNCTIONS eee eeeeeeeeesseeccceeeetseeceeceeesseesssecseessssctteseeerssssetteeee OO

Form and Siting of the Mosque ou... = = Ol

Vill CONTENTS The Bahramiyya Complex ou... eeeeessreereereeeestssteereeeee BS Patron ou... .eeeeeeceesesseeeeeeeeecereeeeeetesenseneeccceceresssssssstesttteeeeseereee OF

Urban Context oo. ee eeeeeesesenreeeeeeessseeeeeeeeeessstsetteereeereee OO MOSQUE ou... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssseeeceercesssscesreesssseereessstteseesssetseteees — OO

Revenue-Producing Buildings 0.0... eee OL FUNCTIONS ooo eee eeeceeeeeeeeeeceetseeseeneeaeeeceeessetstseteesestesttstteeeeeseeeee OD

The Complex of the Khan al-Gumruk oe = 94 PAtrON oo... eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssseeeeceescesssseeeesessseeersessssstesseessssteeee D4

Endowment ou... eeeesessesseeceececeeesessssseeeeerersssssssseeseereesssnee GO

Urban Impact oo... ee eeeeeeseesneeeeeesesssseeeeeeetesssssstteeeereere 9B Khan al-Gumruk o........ cee ececesessceceeseeesstteceeeesterssssttreereeeeee 102

Significance of the Endowment ..........eeeeeeereerrereeeee LI]

Wadf of Nishanji Mehmed Pasha. ..... eee LIA Wadt of Miytab Zade Ahmed Pasha 0. eee LIS Chapter Four The Decentering of Patronage: Dervish Lodges and Endowments of the Seventeenth Century ...... 123 Ottoman Reuse of Sufi Sites oo. eeeeeereeeeeettreeeeseeeeeeee 126 Takiyya Mawlawlyya. oo... cceeeesssseeeeeseeststteserssttttesteseseee 130

Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr oo. eects 134 From Antinomianism to Normative Sufism... 134

Patrons and Building Process oo... eters 14M

Architecture and Urban Context... eeeeeeeeeereeee 143 Takiyya Ikhlastyya oo. ccceeeeeeeeessnneeeereeesssseeeeeerseeeessssnee 148

Takiyya of Aslan Dada... Lol The Waaf of Ipshir Pasha .....ccccescsseeseseeesesseeeeeeeeee 155 Khan ‘TPUman 2.0... eecccceseccceseecceseseesssseessssseestsseeesssee LOO

The Complex in Judayda ......... ee eesseeereeeeeeesttetereereenee 198

Chapter Five ‘The Ottomanization of the Past wo... 175 Ottoman Patronage and Ceremonial in the Monumental COrriCOr oe. eeeeeeeeeeessseeceececessseceeecessssteeeesesssteeessssteseessssteeeseesee LO

The Ottomanization of the Great Mosque of Aleppo .... 176 The Ottomanization of al-Madrasa al-Hallawiyya .......... 182 Expressing Ottoman Hegemony ou... eeeeesseererreeeeeeee LB4 The Khan al-Wazir oo eeeesseesceeeeecesereeceertsssteeeeeeesenseee 188 Patron ooo. eeeeeeeeecceceeecesseneceececeeesecssneneeeessssssseeterssstettereeresnss LBB

ALCHIteCture oo... eeeeecceeeeesseeseececeeeceeesesteererstssttttreessesseereee LOL

Urban Context oo... esscecceceeessesneeeeesessseeeesesssssteeseens LOA

The Ottomanization of Mamlik Motifs oe 197

CONTENTS 1X Chapter Six The Image of an Ottoman City ... ee 211 Texts Produced in Aleppo ou. eeeessseeessseeeeeresstteeessneee 212

Texts Produced at the Imperial Capital wee = 218 Matrakci Nasth’s Portrait of Aleppo ou... eee 219 Evliya Gelebi’s SeyGhatndme ....eescccceeceesseeeeeesssensssteeeeessseeeee, 228

Chapter Seven Epilogue oo... eeeseececesreeresssreeeeetssseeeerssnee 204 GIOSSary ooo. eeeeeesseceeeesssncecececeesssnaceeeseessseeeceeesssteeesesssnsseeteesstsstteeee 24D

Illustration Credits oo... eeeeccccceeseseessncececeeeessssesseeceeseetesssssseteeeee 249

Illustrations Bibliography ou... eee eeeeseccceeesesssnceceerssssseeeecersssseeeeessssesssteeersssee DOL Index woes eeeeeeeeeeeeeesseceeceecessssecesescessssseccesesssssaseceesstseseeseeserssteteesees 2/1]

BL ANK PAGE

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Last of Figures

1. Map of Aleppo in the sixteenth century. After J. Sauvaget, Alep, Plate LXII. Redrawn by José Luis Argiiello. Important City gates: 1. Bab Antakiyya, 2. Bab Oinnesrin, 3. Bab al-Maqam, 4. Bab al-Nayrab, 5. Bab al-Ahmar, 6. Bab al-Hadid, 7. Bab al-Nasr, 8. Bab al-Faraj, 9. Bab al-Jinan.

2. The Great Waqts of the Mdineh. Based on Gaube and Wirth, Aleppo, City Map, digitized by Michael Osman. 3. Khusruwiyya Complex. Plan. After Gaube and Wirth, Aleppo, City Map. 4. ‘Adiliyya Complex. Groundplan. After Gaube and Wirth, Aleppo, City Map. 5. Bahramiyya Complex. Groundplan of Complex. After Gaube and Wirth, Aleppo, City Map.

6. Complex of the Khan al-Gumruk. Groundplan of the core of structures in the Mdineh. After Gaube and Wirth, Aleppo, City Map. 7. Khan al-Gumruk. Plan of the qa‘a in the sixteenth century. From: David, “Consulat de France,” 22, fig. 3. 8. Map of Aleppo in the seventeenth century. After J. Sauvaget, Alep, Plate LXII. Redrawn by José Luis Argiiello. 9. Qa‘a of the ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. From: Sauvaget, Alep, 231, fig. 61. 10. ‘Takiyya Aslan Dada. Groundplan. From: David, Suwaygat ‘Al, Pl. 65. 11. Complex of Ipshir Pasha in Aleppo. Axonometric View of core in Aleppo. From David, Wagf d’Ipstr Pasa, Pl. 15.

12. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Groundplan showing structures’ functions.

Based on David, Wagf d’Ipsir Pasa, Pl. 16. 13. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Groundplan of coffeehouse. From David, Wagf d’lpstr Pasa, Pl. 23.

xu LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 14. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Elevation of coffeehouse. From: David, Wagf d’lpstr Pasa, Pl. 25. 15. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Groundplan of mosque. From: David, Wagf d’Ipstr Pasa, Pl. 21. 16. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Elevation of mosque. From: David, Wagf d’Ipsir Pasa, Pl. 22. 17. Great Mosque of Aleppo. Groundplan. From: MCIA 2, PI. LIII. 18. Madrasa Hallawiyya. Groundplan. From: MCIA 2, Pl. LXOCXIT.

19. Khan al-Wazir. Groundplan. After Miiller, 45, ill. 44. 20. ‘Tower between Bab al-Jinan and Bab Antakiyya. Elevation. From: MCIA 2, Pl. XIb.

Last of Plates

Unless otherwise noted, all photographs are by the author, digitally edited by Ozgiir Basak Alkan.

1. ‘Adiliyya Complex. Entrance to the prayer hall of the mosque. 2. Aleppo’s skyline viewed from the West. From: Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XL. 3. Mausoleum of Kha’ir Bak. Exterior View. Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum, neg. image courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard College Library. 4. Khan Abrak, also called Khan al-Qassabiyya. From: Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XXI. 5. Khan Azdamur, also called Khan al-Sabun. From: Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XXII. 6. Khan Ujkhan. Entrance. Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum, neg. image courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard College Library. 7. Khan Kha’ir Bak. Entrance. Photo: Steven Wolf. 8. ‘Tower of Siileyman I. 9. Mausoleum of Guhar Malikshah. 10. Jami al-'Tawashi. 11. The Khusruwiyya complex seen from the citadel. 12. Khusruwlyya mosque. Facade of prayer hall.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS x 13. Khusruwiyya complex. Entrance to the Prayer Hall. 14. ‘Adiliyya complex. General View. 15. ‘Adiliyya complex. Portico of the Mosque. 16. ‘Adiliyya complex. Eastern Entrance to the Mosque. 17. Bahramiyya complex. Portico of the Mosque. 18. Bahramiyya complex. Interior view towards the qibla. 19. Khan al-Gumruk. Exterior facade. Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum, neg. image courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard College Library. 20. Khan al-Gumruk. Interior fagade overlooking the courtyard. 21. ‘Takiyya Mawlawiyya.

22. ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr viewed from the south. Postcard by Wattar Fréres, Aleppo, ca. 1930’s, collection of the author. 23. Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. General View. 24. Mausoleum of Shaykh Abt Bakr. Interior of qa‘a. Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum, neg. image courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard College Library. 25. Aleppo seen from the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. From: Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate IV. 26. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Facade of Coffeehouse. 27. Great Mosque of Aleppo. Facade of the Haram. 28. Madrasa Hallawiyya. Entrance to the Haram. 29. Khan al-Wazir. Exterior facade before 1950's. Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum, neg. image courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard College Library. 30. Khan al-Wazir. Exterior facade today. 31. Khan al-Wazir. Feline figures on the exterior facade. 32. Khan al-Wazir. Interior facade overlooking the courtyard.

From: Dussaud, Syne antique, Pl. 99. | 33. Castle at Hosap. Entrance. 34. Citadel of Aleppo. Second door with facing lions. 35. View of Sultanyya, from Matrakci Nasth, Memii‘a-1 Mendézil, Istanbul,

1537-8. Istanbul, University Library, Ms. 5964, fols. 31v—32r. 36. View of Nice, from Matrakci Nasth, Siéleymanndme, Istanbul, ca. 1543. Istanbul, ‘Topkapi Saray1 Miizesi, MS. H. 1608. From: Gagman and Tammndi, Topkap: Manuscnpts, Pl. 147. 37. View of Aleppo, from Matrakci Nasth, Memii‘a-- Mendazil, Istanbul, 1537-8.

Istanbul, University Library, Ms. 5964, fols. 106v—105r.

BLANK PAGE

ABBREVIATIONS AND FREQUENTLY CITED SOURCES

AS Aleppo Damascus, Markaz al-Watha’iq al-Wataniyya (National Archives): Awamir Sultaniyya (Imperial Decrees) for Aleppo

BBA Istanbul, Basbakanhk Arsivi (Prime Ministry Archives)

BEO Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales EP The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956-present

Gaube and Wirth Heinz Gaube and Eugen Wirth, Aleppo. Estorische und geographische Beitrdge zur baulichen

Gestaltung, zur sozialen Organisation und zur wirtschaftlichen Dynamik einer vorderastatischen Fernhandelsmetropole, Ttibinger Atlas des Vorderen

Onents, Beihefte, Reihe B, No. 58 (Wiesbaden:

L. Reichert, 1984)

Ghazzi 2, I to III Kamil al-Ghazzi, Aztab Nahr al-Dhahab ft Tarkh Halab, 2nd ed., 3 vols, edited and introduced by Shawaqi Sha‘th and Mahmud

Fakhuri (Aleppo: Dar al-Qalam al-‘Arabi, 1991-1993) [Ong. ed. Aleppo: al-Matba‘a al-Mariniyya, 1923-26. ]

TJMES International Fournal of Middle East Studves Ibn al-Hanball, Radi al-Din Muhammad b. al-Hanbali alI:1, 1:2, 2:1 and 2:2 Halabi, Durr al-habab ft tarikh a‘yan Halab, Ed. M. Fakhiri and Y. ‘Abbara, 2 parts in 4 vols. (Damascus: Manshtrat Wizarat al-

. Thigafa, 1972-1974)

IUK Istanbul Universitesi Kiitiiphanesi (Istanbul University Library)

MAE-Nantes Nantes, Archives du Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres MCIA 1:1, 1:2, and 2. Ernst Herzfeld, Maténaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum, Deuxieme partie: Syrie du Nord,

Inscriptions et monuments d’Alep, 2 parts in 3

vols. (Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1954-1956)

Xvl ABBREVIATIONS AND FREQUENTLY CITED SOURCES

REMMM Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méchterranée

Shaykh Wafa’, Awhya Halab Ferdinand Taoutel, s.j. (Fardinan Tawtil), Watha’iq tartkhiyya ‘an Halab,

, vol. 2: Awlhya Halab ft manzimat al-Shaykh Wafa’ ma‘ tarjamat hayat al-Shaykh Muhammad Abi al-Wafa’ al-Rifa‘%t (Beirut: Imprimerie Catho-

lique, 1941)

Tabbakh 2, I to VI Raghib al-Tabbakh, [lam al-nubala’ bi-tartkh Halab al-shahba’, 2nd ed., 7

vols. and index volume, edited by Muhammad Kamal (Aleppo: Dar alQalam al-‘Arabi, 1988-1992). [Onig. ed. Aleppo, 1923-1926. ]

“Urdi Abu al-Wafa’ b. ‘Umar al-‘Urdi, Ma‘adin al-dhahab fi'l-a‘yan al-mashar-

rafa bi-him Halab, Edited by ‘Abd Allah al-Ghazalt (Kuwait: Dar al‘Uriba I’J-nashr wa’l-tawzi‘, 1987)

VGM Ankara, Vakiflar Genel Midiirliigii (Directorate of Wadafs)

NOTE ON DATES AND TRANSLITERATION

Arabic 1s transliterated according to the system used in J/MES. For Ottoman Turkish, a combination of the J/MES system and that system used by Turcica is employed, in an effort to represent Ottoman orthography. ‘Terms and names common in Modern Turkish, and most names of places in the Republic of ‘Turkey, are given in Modern Turkish orthography (for example, Koza Ham, and, Diyarbakir rather than Amid).

When Ottoman names and words are used in Arabic-language texts, I have transliterated them according to their textual context. However, for the sake of clarity and consistency, the names of all Ottoman patrons have been transliterated in Ottoman, but the names of structures which are today in the Syrian Arab Republic are given

in Arabic (for example, I have transliterated the name of a patron as Husrev Pasha throughout, while the mosque named after him in Aleppo is transliterated Khusruwiyya rather then Husreviye). Legal terms and terms relating to Muslm religious practice are rendered in Arabic (thus, wagfiyya is used throughout, rather than vahfiye).

Words that have entered the English language are spelled according to the dictionary and not transliterated (for example, Pasha rather than Pasa or basha). Place names in Arabic have been rendered according to their classical vocalization rather than contemporary pronounciation (e.g. Hims rather than Homs) except for “Mdineh,” used to refer to a section of Aleppo specifically. If the contemporary toponym is different than

the name used in the Ottoman period, the older name has been used whenever possible, the goal being to ensure easy recognition of

the toponym (thus, Aintab rather than Gaziantep, but Diyarbakir rather than Amid).

Common era dates are used as a rule. On occasion, both common era and fart dates are used; the Art date comes first, separated from the common era date by a slash.

BLANK PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Through its many incarnations this study benefited from the support and assistance of many individuals and institutions. A Social Science Research Council Fellowship (1995-96) and a Fulbright-Hays Fellow-

ship (1996-97) funded my main period of fieldwork in Syria and ‘Turkey. Initial writing was supported through the Andrew W. Mellon

fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art (1997-98). Additional fieldwork was funded through faculty research grants from the Dean of Humanities at Rice University. A semester of junior leave in 2000 enabled me to reshape the first incarnation of this study. The final stages of writ-

ing and production were supported by the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The complex logistics of my fieldwork entailed many travels. In Aleppo, many individuals befriended me and educated me. Dr. Mustafa Miro, now Prime Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic, as Governor of the Muhafaza of Aleppo in 1996 kindly provided advice and letters of introduction. I thank the staff of the Center for the Study of

Arab Science at the University of Aleppo, the Dar al-Kutub al- | Wataniyya, and the Aleppo Museum. Through the Aleppine architects Adh Qudsi, Omar Abdelaziz Hallaj, Abdallah Hadjar, Koko Zobian and the debating circle at the Syndicate of Engineers and Architects of Aleppo I began to discern the significance of the visible past today. Jean-Claude David provided valuable advice, and generously shared

his experience of the fabric of the city during our walks through Aleppo. The late Dr. Robert Jebejian welcomed me into his library and his research on the communities of Aleppo. The friendship of the Baronian and Zobian families and their extended networks made it possible for me to know the texture of everyday life there. I thank all the Ahayyos and khaytos who welcomed me into their neighbor-

hoods and homes, told stories, gave directions, showed obscured inscriptions, and otherwise taught me to navigate Aleppo. In Damascus, I thank Madame Da‘d Hakim and the staff at the Markaz al-Watha’iq al-Wataniyya (National Archives); the staff of the

Asad Library; and the staff of the Institut Francais d’Etudes Arabes

de Damas, particularly former directors Jacques Langhade and

XX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dominique Mallet, its librarians, and the resident scholars, especially Madame Sarab Atassi. Dr. Abd al-Razzaq Moaz of the Ministry of Culture walked through Damascus with me and shared his intimate knowledge of the city. Alberto Fernandez, and Patricia and Bassam

Kabra and their families provided material and intellectual succor at critical moments. The ‘Turkish government twice issued research visas over 1995-1997.

In Istanbul, I thank the staff of the Prime Ministry Archives, the Istanbul University Library, and the Atatiirk Kataplhifi. In Ankara, I acknowledge the kindness of the staff at the Vakiflar Genel Miidiirliigii.

I thank the directors and staff of the American Research Institute in Turkey, in its branches in Istanbul and Ankara, especially Antony

Greenwood, as well as the staff of the Institut Francais d’Etudes Anatoliennes in Istanbul, its director, Stephane Yérasimos, and the members of the Observatoire Urbain d’Istanbul. I thank Hugh and Nicole Pope for entrusting me with the section of the hbrary and papers of the late Jean-Pierre Thieck that related to his research on Ottoman Aleppo. At the archives of the Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres in Nantes,

J am grateful for the guidance of Francoise Maxence and AnneSophie Cras, and for their patience in tolerating my unfolding and studying maps and architectural drawings on the reading room floor. Many mentors, colleagues and friends provided assistance and advice

in numerous ways at various stages of this project. Irene Bierman’s initial questions opened an avenue of investigation; her advice, support, and intellectual example throughout the years are impossible to evaluate. Discussions with Nasser Rabbat on the historiography of Islamic

architecture, begun in 1991, inform and challenge my writing in numerous ways. I am grateful for many conversations on Ottoman cities with André Raymond, Abdul-Karim Rafeq, Leslie Peirce, Jean-

Paul Pascual and Lucienne Thys-Senocak, and on Halabiyyat with Bruce Masters, Yasser Tabbaa, and Abraham Marcus. Giilru Necipoglu

provided advice and encouragement at a critical time. I also thank Susan Slyomovics, Paula Sanders, David Roxburgh, Nezar AlSayyad, Scott Redford, Ian Manners, Zeynep Celik, and Jere Bacharach. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the intellectual commu-

nity of professors, students and visiting scholars at the program in the History, Theory and Criticism of Architecture and Art, and the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture foster an exceptional climate for critical endeavor. ‘The guidance of Jeffrey Spurr of the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Xxl Fine Arts Library at Harvard University enabled me to reconstruct the visible past of Aleppo through photographs. I was fortunate to have as graduate research assistants Michele Lamprakos, and Melanie Michailidis. José Luis Argtiello of AKPIA provided assistance with the illustrations with characteristic good cheer.

At Bnill Academic Publishers, the comments and suggestions of the series editors Suratya Faroghi and Halil Inalcik enriched the manuscript. I am most grateful to ‘Trudy Kamperveen for her patience

and her support of the project. Each member of my family has nurtured and supported me in ways impossible to evaluate. In Beirut, my parents and their friends created an atmosphere in which to grow up where enjoyment of learning and a competence in at least four languages were taken for granted. The living memory of my father and the unfailing love and support of my mother have been my anchor. My sister Garine has been an active participant in all my endeavors. Keith Watenpaugh shared the adventure and perisanlik of fieldwork; a discerning critic, he enriched the process of writing in a thousand and one ways while fully engaged in his own research. This book would not have been possible without him.

BLANK PAGE

| CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Situating Aleppo

The door leading into the prayer hall of the ‘Adiliyya mosque in Aleppo bears the city’s only Ottoman-period inscription in the voice, as it were, of the craftsmen who built it (Pl. 1).' Engraved on the strap hinges nailed to the two panels of the door, each half of the iscription names a craftsman and asks God’s forgiveness for him. One of

them, Muhammad b. Muhammad, an inlayer, is qualified as “alShami” (“from the Bilad al-Sham”), the other, al-Haj Khalil b. alHaj) Yusuf, is “al-Halabr’ (“the Aleppine’’). However, the inscription easily escapes notice. Ihe composition of the mosque’s entrance more prominently displays the official foundation inscription above the lin-

tel, which names the patron, Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, the Ottoman governor of the vildayet, or province, of Aleppo. A chronoeram locates the Pasha’s act in time, in 963/1555—-1556. ‘The Pasha’s titles convey a sense of the social order, and of his position within it. By contrast, the craftsmen’s signature is undated. As if an afterthought, it discreetly occupies a lower position on the entrance bay, reflecting its lesser standing in Ottoman society. Yet even when hierarchically arranged, the composition of the ‘Adiliyya’s entrance bay forms a unit; the traces of the patron and the craftsmen, the Istanbulbased official and the local journeymen, are locked together in one architectural ensemble. This pair of inscriptions, and the two voices it makes visible, illustrate the series of encounters between the Ottoman imperial elite based in Istanbul and the societies of territories they conquered. The active,’ dynamic engagement between the center and the periphery as expressed

through architecture and urbanism is at the heart of this study of Aleppo in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The modes of

' Heinz Gaube, Arabische Inschrifien aus Syrien (Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen

Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, 1978), 27, in Arabic.

2 CHAPTER ONE interpretation of the visual past of Middle Eastern cities, in particular those formerly part of the Ottoman empire, have occasioned debate. Ottoman provincial art and architecture from the sixteenth through

the nineteenth century are often described by such vague terms as “traditional,” or “derivative.” ‘They are said to be “traditional” to the extent that the architecture erected in the Ottoman period is seen as perpetuating older styles derived from “local traditions,” themselves vaguely defined; and “derivative” in the sense that they do not evince a new or original visual language, but rather follow either

local older forms or mimic designs developed at the center of the empire. Despite the recent surge in scholarship in many disciplines, particularly history, on provincial Ottoman society and culture, these

notions endure. Yet careful consideration of the material remains and their contexts suggest that these two labels and their cognates inadequately account for the complexity and variety of artistic processes.

Tradition as a concept implies a relation between the past and the present. At any given moment in time, people in the present imagine the past as a tradition.’ As such, tradition is a dynamic con-

cept, the accumulation of decisions that are constantly amended. Conceptually, tradition imphes immutability, yet it is relentlessly under

revision. In Ottoman society, the ruling group negotiated an everchanging relationship with the past—the past of the Ottoman polity, as well as the “acquired” past of conquered territories. ‘Then as now, material remains from the past—buildings or objects—were crucial sites for the articulation of such relationships. The treatment of such remains made visible the imagined relationship between the past and the present. * Speaking of traditional forms in an Islamic context, Irene Bierman wrote: “Traditional forms provide images of the past: they enable a group to envision its origins, and they display its descent. ‘The preservation of some forms and the alteration or obliteration of others are part of the ongoing fabrication, transformation, and maintenance of national, regional, and ethnic identities.” Irene A. Bierman, “Architecture: Traditional Forms,” In John L. Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 1 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 118. For broader discussions of the concept of tradition, see Eric Hobsbawm and ‘Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), especially Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” 1-14. For

the concept of a traditional past as it relates to nationalist ideology, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Orgin and Spread of Nationalism, revised

edition (London and New York, 1991). For an overview of concepts of tradition in contemporary architectural culture, see Nezar Al Sayyad, “Introduction,” in Al Sayyad, ed. The End of Tradition? (London: Routledge, 2004).

INTRODUCTION 3 Cities, especially ancient cities where history has accumulated in layers, such as Ottoman Aleppo, are central to the investigation of society's evolving relationship with the past. In the case of newly created buildings and objects, the use of forms derived from the past, and the dissemination of standardized designs, were key elements in shaping the image of Ottoman rule.’ The cultural productions at the center of the empire, Istanbul, directed by court workshops, have

been used as the main source for the study of Ottoman culture. However the extensive urban transformations and architectural campaigns in provincial cities, not to mention provincial workshops for the production of luxury goods, also provide valuable evidence about

the evolving Ottoman view of the past and the present. To arrive at an understanding of provincial architecture, one must attend to the complexities of local settings as well as the close links with the imperial center.

The “voice” of the Pasha, the representative of central Ottoman rule, has long dominated the political, social, and cultural history of the Middle East. The “voice” of the craftsman has been heard less often, which makes the ‘Adiliyya inscription all the more exceptional.

Yet the historian who views these signs can choose to understand them in different ways. Today’s reader may identify the voice of the Pasha as one of an imperial, and imperialist régime, and may identify the voice of the craftsman as that of the indigenous worker, perhaps even a national subject—a notion that belongs to the twentieth century. In 1555, however, other identifications would have prevailed over this binary scheme. ‘The Pasha was an Ottoman, yet he sought

to install his family in Aleppo and to provide them with a permanent income through the endowment of the ‘Adiliyya mosque. As for the two craftsmen (assuming that their msbas reflect their origins), each hailed from a different vilayet of the empire. They were prob-

ably recruited to work on this building project, in keeping with the Ottoman practice of sending skilled craftsmen gathered throughout the empire to major architectural campaigns. In 1555, Muhammad and KShalil were not Arabs, or Syrians, they were reGya; Mehmed Pasha

was not a Turk, or a Bosnian, rather he was an “askeri; all three men were Muslims, and servants of the Sultan. Yet the historiography of > Gillru Necipoglu, “A K4niin for the State, A Canon for the Arts: Conceptualizing the Classical Synthesis of Ottoman Art and Architecture,” in Gilles Veinstein, ed., Soliman le Magnifique et son temps (Paris: La documentation francaise, 1992): 195-216.

4 CHAPTER ONE the former provinces of the Ottoman empire has largely privileged an interpretation linked to twentieth-century concepts of national identity.

Consequently, this interpretation places the scholar at the heart of the most poignant debates in the recent history of the Mhuddle East. Any investigation of the past must necessarily begin in the pre-

sent. In the present, Aleppo is the second city of the Synan Arab Republic, and Istanbul, the cultural capital of the Republic of Turkey.

Both nation-states were carved out of the Ottoman empire in the early twentieth century; both countries have struggled with the legacy of modern colonialist regimes—the late-Ottoman state as well as the

French, German and British states. However, on the map of scholarship, these two cities fall into different sub-fields of inquiry. As dominant scholarship has conformed to the boundaries created by contemporary national borders, it has defined specific fields of inquiry

that approximate national histories, tracing the history of an ethnic group from the distant past to the present, requiring specific linguistic skills, and circumscribed evidentiary fields. The implications of this scholarly partition have included the privileging of certain languages for research over others, and the use of certain archives, or pieces of matenal culture, over others. In most contemporary scholarship for any historical period, this entity, this city, Aleppo, has normally been given its modern, national identification, with an almost exclusive reliance on Arabic-language material. An inscription in Ottoman, for example, is not considered the responsibility of the specialist of Syria, as it falls into another field—Ottoman and Turkish studies—where it is relegated to the sub-field of provincial studies.’ As Ottoman historians privilege the study of the imperial center, or of the provinces now within the bounds of the Republic of ‘Turkey, the Ottoman inscription in Aleppo falls through the cracks between academic fields. In addition to the disciplinary divisions, the customary grand narrative of Ottoman history has cast the seventeenth century as a period of political decline and cultural decay. Gompared to the celebrated era

of rapid growth in the sixteenth century (often called the Classical * Few of the Ottoman-language inscriptions of the region are published. The cor-

pora of epigraphy for the region gloss over the Ottoman period, including only occasional Arabic-language inscriptions from the sixteenth century onward. Ernst Herzfeld, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum, Deuxiéme partie: Syrie du Nord,

Inscriptions et monuments d’Alep, 2 vols in 3 (Cairo: Institut Frangais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1954-1956), and Gaube, Jnschriften.

INTRODUCTION J Age), the seventeenth century is less well known in the history of the Ottoman empire.”

How did the history of the former Ottoman provinces come to include such blank spaces? Regarding the manner in which the Ottoman past has been studied—or studiously ignored—in the context of nation-states formerly part of the empire, Rifa’at Abou-ElHaj argued that the crux of Arab scholarship on the Ottoman era revolves around the ascendancy of the nation-state, described as inevitable. In particular, Arab-nationalist scholarship “provided an ideological justification for the territorial divisions which the colonial (i.e. post-Ottoman) powers carried out and for forging a new identity for the local elites.”° The relationship of modern Turkish-language

scholarship to the Ottoman past in general, and to the Arabicspeaking provinces of the empire in particular, is similarly fraught. In addition, the role of the post-Ottoman colonial regimes, such as the French in the case of Syria, in assessing and judging the Ottoman past 1s yet to be fully confronted by each entity concerned. These trends in scholarship have shaped the historiography of Ottoman cities in what is today Syria. In addition to limitations on research

languages and evidence, these trends involve a broader framework about the cultural evolution of the region. Studies of Ottoman architecture in the provinces have tended to claim certain buildings as Turkish; conversely, local historians have been all too willing to give

up these buildings as foreign and inauthentic, or to reclaim aspects of them as representing enduring national traits.’ Broadly, two views dominate scholarship: On the one hand, the “Arabic-speaking provinces” of the Ottoman empire are depicted as a culturally recalcitrant region which rejected new influences and retreated into a medieval

past; on the other, an enduring national tradition, discernible but stifled under foreign Ottoman rule, ultimately rejected the imperialist oppressor.

This study addresses some of these lacunae by framing Aleppo as an Ottoman city, and combining evidence from both local and imperial sources for the study of its urbanism. In addition, by extending » Cemal Kafadar, “The Question of Ottoman Decline,” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4 (1997-8): 30-75. ® Rifa?at Ali Abou-El-Haj, “The Social Uses of the Past: Recent Arab Historiography of Ottoman Rule,” J[JMES 14 (1982), 187. " See for example, Abdiisselam Ulucgam, Jrak’taki Turk Maman Eserler (Ankara:

Kilttir Bakanhgi Yayinlan, 1989).

6 CHAPTER ONE the period under study to the seventeenth century along with the celebrated sixteenth, it seeks to undo the dominant periodization. Consideration of the substantial architectural and urban activities suggests that the seventeenth century was a period of reorientation and consolidation rather than decline. This study adopts a dynamic metaphor of encounter and exchange to conceptualize the relationship between the center and the periphery. In this exchange, visual culture emerged an essential tool with patronage as a pivotal mediating factor. These warrant consideration.

Imperial Architecture in the Center and the Periphery

Institutional complexes like the ‘Adiliyya constitute the most visible signs of the Ottomanization of provincial cities. Ottoman patrons built them most systematically in Aleppo around the mid-sixteenth century, during the reign of Sultan Siileyman, known as the Magnificent in western historiography and as the Lawgiver (Kanini) to Ottomans, a crucial time in the history of the empire, viewed as a golden age,

a classical period. As the administrative and legal structure of the Ottoman state received their most systematic formulation, a canon emerged for the official arts and architecture of the state as well. Sinan, the mi‘mar basz or chief imperial architect under Siileyman I and Selim II, elaborated what has been described as the classic canon of Ottoman architecture.” At the imperial center, commissions such as the Siileymaniye Complex in Istanbul (1550’s), and the Selimiye Complex in Edirne (1568-1575), stand as examples of this new vision. In both instances, the use of topography—each complex is situated on a hill overlooking the city—ensured maximum wisibility for the mosque. ‘he exteriors of these structures appear as imposing pyramidal masses of cascading domes, punctuated by slender minarets. The mosques consist of central domed spaces flanked by subsidiary

areas covered with smaller domes. They feature elements of what came to be the signature Ottoman style: the profile of the lead-covered hemispherical dome, and the soaring pencil-shaped minarets. In their evocation of the Byzantine building tradition, such Ottoman * Necipoglu, “Kantin for the State.” ” A comprehensive study of Ottoman architectural culture in the age of Sinan is under preparation by Gilru Necipoglu.

INTRODUCTION 7 structures stood distinct from those conventions of imperial Islamic architecture derived from ‘Timurid prototypes that constituted the reference for the visual language of the other great Muslim empires

of the period, the Safavids in Iran and the Mughals in the Indian subcontinent. ‘The biographies of Sinan describe the development of this architecture as the pursuit of the well-proportioned dome, with the dome of the Hagia Sophia as the exemplar.'° Scholarly accounts of Ottoman architecture echo the sixteenth-century texts by focusing on one architect’s evolution and by privileging formal evolution as the main narrative motif."

Yet Sinan’s task encompassed much more than the creation of masterpieces in the imperial capital and in select provincial centers. Rather, it extended to the creation of an imperial architecture tailored to the needs of the House of Osman. The office of the imperial architect, the ser mi‘mdaran-1 hdssa, staffed by numerous architects whose names we do not know, headed by Sinan, produced standardized

designs for a multitude of less lavish Ottoman public structures throughout the empire.'? Members of the imperial family and of the ruling elite patronized such structures in the provinces, a monumental task critical to the development of the classical Ottoman architecture of the sixteenth century. The need to formulate a recognizable Ottoman design capable of being replicated efficiently in the provinces

drove the effort to crystallize a canon for Ottoman architecture. A centralized system of production ensured the standardization and consistency of architectural elements. The office of imperial architects designed buildings in Istanbul, then sent groundplans to the provinces.

As these plans have either not survived or have not yet been discovered, with rare exceptions, the modalities of this process cannot ‘0 Mustafa Sa‘’s early modern biography of Sinan is published: Tezkzretii’l Biinydan

(Istanbul, 1315/1897); archival materials and the biographies adapted to modern Turkish are published in Zeki Sonmez, Mimar Sinan Ile Ile Tanht Yazmalar-Belgeler (Istanbul, 1988). For an English translation, see Metin Sdzen, and Suphi Saat¢i, Mimar Sinan and Tezkiret-uil Bunyan (Istanbul, 1989). '' Godfrey Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, reprint 1992), Aptullah Kuran, Sznan: The Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture (Washington, DC: Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., 1987).

Ulkii U. Bates, “T'wo Ottoman Documents on Architects in Egypt,” Mugarnas 3 (1985): 121-127. ‘Tilay Artan, “The Kadirga Palace Shrouded by the Mists of Time,” Turcica 26 (1994), 90, critiqued the emphasis on Sinan’s personal genius and creativity, suggesting instead a model of standardized production. See also Irene A. Bierman, “Franchising Ottoman Istanbul: The Case of Ottoman Crete” in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture. A Supra-National Heritage (Istanbul: Yem Yayin, 1999) 199-204.

8 CHAPTER ONE be entirely known. However, archival documents such as account ledgers indicate that architect-engineers and craftsmen often traveled between the provinces and Istanbul to work on specific projects.'° Given the range and centralization of Ottoman architectural production, public buildings by official patrons in the provinces can best be understood in the context of the imperial system. Conversely, the

imperial nature of Ottoman architecture does not imply that the courtly arts were autonomous of the broader context of the empire. Studies of Ottoman visual culture often assume a model of cultural production whereby the dominant culture produced at the center was disseminated to the periphery. This model casts the periphery as the passive consumer of the high culture emanating from the center. In Ottoman art history, provincial artistic productions in the imperial idiom are often viewed as derivative and artistically inferior to those produced at the center.'* Similarly, histories of the architecture of former Ottoman provinces often gloss over or vilify the Ottoman period,

echoing the assumption that imperial forms were alien, imported, and inauthentic. ‘These assumptions generate questions that exclude a prior the possibility of an active engagement between the center and the periphery, or of the periphery’s influence on the center. Instead, the metaphor of encounter, of interconnection rather than that of influence reframes the hierarchical construction of the centerperiphery relationship. ‘This model aids in reassessing the develop-

ment of Ottoman architecture, and in reevaluating the customary focus on the architectural production in the imperial capitals. In an imperial situation, the center does not solely act on and modify the

' On groundplans: Giilru Necipoglu-Kafadar, “Plans and Models in Fifteenthand Sixteenth-century Ottoman Architectural Practice,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 45, no. 3 (September 1986): 224-243. On the office of imperial architects: Serafettin Turan, “Osmanl Teskilatinda Hassa Mimarlan,” Tanh Arastirmalan Dergist 1 (1963): 157-202; Gillsiim Baydar Nalbantoglu, “The Professionali-

zation of the Ottoman-Turkish architect,’ (Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1989), 11-41; Cengiz Orhonlu, “Sehir Mimarlan,” in Osmani Imparatorlugunda sehurcitk ve Ulasm, ed. Salih Ozbaran (Izmir: Ege Universitesi, Edebiyat Fakultesi, 1984). Miibahat 8. KiitiikoSlu, Osmanlilarda Narh Muiessesest ve 1640 Tanhh Narh Defer Istanbul:

Enderun Kitabevi, 1983). ‘+ For example, a discussion of painted woodwork in Damascene domestic architecture characterizes them as derivative of “imported” forms developed at the imperial center: Annie-Christine Daskalakis Mathews, “The Nur al-Din Room: Damascus, 1707,” In Period Rooms in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: The Metropolitan

Museum of Art and H. N. Abrams, 1996), 287-295.

INTRODUCTION 9 periphery; rather, the periphery alters the center in its own right.’ In the sixteenth century, the need to Ottomanize the formerly Mamluk

territories with their substantial architectural legacy, as well as the territories of Eastern Europe where no Islamic tradition existed, moti-

vated the office of imperial architects to formulate an architectural design that could be standardized and reproduced at will, a sign that would index Ottoman rule. In this process, the image of Ottoman rule was redefined in turn. The replication of central forms in the provinces responded to local contexts, available materials and skilled labor, as adaptability emerged as one of the characteristics of Ottoman public monumental architecture. The provinces absorbed ideas and forms from the center and recontextualized them. The structures patronized by Ottoman officials in the provinces ranged from modest fountains to rural caravanserais to urban building complexes that transformed the functions of cities. The mosques of these complexes most clearly exhibited

the legacy of the standardized plans from Istanbul. More often than not, the profiles of the mosques of the provincial complexes were recognizably Ottoman, with their hemispherical domes and pencilshaped minarets, while subsidiary elements such as public baths or caravanserais evinced the continued currency of local visual repertories.

In places such as Aleppo, the imperial formula was adapted to the local urban visual language, reflected in the siting of buildings or in architectonic details. Ottoman observers such as the traveler Evliya Celebi recognized the imperial style as distinct and described it with the term Rimi (Rum tarzi) (literally “Roman”), meaning “from the area

of Ram,” that is, the area around the capital of Istanbul, the former Eastern Roman Empire.’® Evliya and other Ottomans from the center of the empire clearly perceived the difference between the Ottoman style and other architectural forms, and expected this style to distinguish

mosques sponsored by the dynasty."’

'° For an exposition of center-periphery issues, see Enrico Castelnuovo and Carlo Ginzburg, “Centro e Periferia,” In Stora dell’arte uahana, pt. 1, vol. 1, ed. Giovanni Previtali, (Turin: Einaudi, 1979): 285-332; Peter Burke, The European Renaissance: Centres and Peripheries (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998). ‘© See for example, Evliya Celebi, Eoliya Celebi Seyahatnamest, Vol. 9: Anadolu, Suriye,

Hicaz (1671-1672) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaasi, 1935), 374. '’ This point is discussed in Chapter 6. See also Cigdem Kafescioglu, ““In The Image of Rum:’ Ottoman Architectural Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Aleppo and Damascus,” Mugarnas 16 (1999), 80.

10 CHAPTER ONE Architectural forms were inseparable from the institutions and functions they housed. Just as in imperial Roman architecture, urban units

such as fora, temples, and entire downtown cores were exported to the provinces, similarly in Ottoman architecture, Ottoman civic elements, that 1s, the institutions that supported the Ottoman version of the Islamic way of life were reproduced through the provincial complexes. Locating such complexes in cities was critical, since cities

were the nodes of Ottoman governance in the provinces, the chan-

nels for the dissemination of power and cultural influence from Istanbul. However, while the tool of intervention—the institutional complex—was standardized, each city absorbed and transformed the forms from the center. In addition to their distinctive architecture, the combinations of functions which these complexes provided to the subjects of the sultan were also Ottoman in the sense that they served purposes ultimately beneficial to the empire. As this study makes clear, the choice of functions incorporated in the institutional complexes reflected the interests and needs of the Ottoman ruling elite.

Patronage and the Production of Space

The agency of patrons determined the development of Ottoman architecture, through the cumulative effect of myriad small and midlevel commissions. The cultural meaning of patronage in this society merits consideration. Patronage by members of the empire’s elite through the legal means of the wagf endowment constituted one of the most important tools of urbanization. In Ottoman society, as in most early modern Islamic polities, the vast majority of communal

structures, even structures one might term “civic,” were the result of the patronage of individuals rather than corporate bodies (city councils, guilds, and the like). ‘Through the legal mechanism of wagf, powerful individuals established agreements with the Islamic community to tie up resources devoted to religious or charitable purposes in perpetuity. While individuals at all levels of society created endowments,

the major acts of patronage of the wealthy and powerful shaped cities most decisively.

The endowment of communal structures was an integral part of the social and cultural expectations from powerful individuals. ‘The provision for the urban institutions of the Islamic community, and the fulfillment of religious dictates such as the hay, were the responsibility

INTRODUCTION 1] of members of the ruling group. Ottoman architecture could not be cisseminated in the provinces without patrons willing to build. A great many powerful men and a few powerful women took on this responsibility. However, each building was not merely the direct result of an all-powerful imperial will expressed through the agency of individual patrons. Rather, each building entailed chains of compromises

between the desires and ambitions of the individual, the requirements and expectations of social groups, the demands of the central authority, the ever-changing calculus of political life, and the thousand practical problems of planning, supplying and legal wrangling. The powerful were expected fund their patronage activities for the betterment of the uwmma through the spoils of juhad, understood as war waged against non-Muslims, or Muslims who are not righteous. Communal expectations anticipated that profits derived from conquest would be redeployed in the service of society. ‘Thus in a very real sense, conquest sustained empire-building. In Nushat ds-selatin, his book of counsels for Sultans, Mustafa ‘Ali asserted that communal funds (the public treasury) should not be employed for the building of charitable endowments; rather the sultan’s share of booty after a victorious campaign was to be spent on pious deeds.’ Furthermore,

while the powerful and the wealthy bore the burden of creating waqis, they also had to merit the privilege of endowing. Sultans who

had not demonstrated their ability for conquest did not deserve to place their stamp on the empire’s landscape. While this practice 1s most relevant to imperial philanthropy, it suggests the broader notion of a decorum of patronage.'’ Unlike Jerusalem or Damascus, Aleppo received limited sultanic patronage. Rather, members of the Ottoman élite shaped the city during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Patronage of prominent structures allowed Ottoman officials to increase their social and political profiles, thus functioning as a legit-

imizing tool and contributing to their careers. In his book of etquette for Ottoman gentlemen of 1586-1587, Mev@idi?n-Nefa’is ft Kava‘tdr |-Mealis, “Ali stressed just this point:

8 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Mustafa ‘Alt’s Counsel for Sultans of 1581: Edition, Translation,

Notes, ed. Andreas Tietze (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissen-

schaften, 1979-1982), vol. 1, 54 and 146. Necipoglu, “Siileymaniye Complex,” explored the issue of funding public buildings out of spoils of war in relation to the Sileymaniye Complex in Istanbul.

12 CHAPTER ONE To build mosques in the flourishing and prosperous seat of government and to construct dervish lodges or madrasas in a famous capital are not pious deeds performed to acquire merit in God’s sight. Every wise and intelligent man knows that these are pious deeds performed in order to enhance one’s role as a leader and to achieve a good reputation. There are thousands of cities whose inhabitants are in need of mosques and dervish lodges... Yet, those who wish to perform pious deeds for ostentation and display clearly wish to be renowned

in cities which are seats of the throne.”

This statement confirms that the expectations of powerful Ottomans included building the institutions of Muslim communal life, such as mosques, dervish lodges, or madrasas. It was a means to ascend the Ottoman hierarchy, to accumulate cultural capital, as it were. The political trajectories of the patrons of Aleppo’s kiilliyes confirm the efficacy of this strategy: most of them were at one point beglerbegis of the province of Aleppo; many became Grand Viziers. Even persons who were practically invisible to the public (female members of the Ottoman

dynasty) used monumental architecture in prominent locations, such as Istanbul, to make their power and importance visible.”’ ‘Ali counseled his audience to build judiciously, choosing a location where the structure’s beneficial effect for its patron’s status could

be maximized. While Istanbul, the empire’s capital, was clearly a most desirable location to showcase one’s piety, wealth and power, all the cities of the empire received the patronage of the Ottoman ruling elite. Aleppo, the nexus of the East-West trade, emerged as a particularly desirable location for patronage for some of the most prominent Ottomans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That the élite patronized Islamic institutions throughout the empire bolstered imperial claims to justice, legittmacy and service to the Muslim community. In addition, Ottoman society provided powerful incentives of another order for provincial patronage.

A reminder of the nature of the Ottoman élite sets the stage for the importance of patronage through wagf to this social group as a shelter for income. Most of the officials who built in Aleppo came from the highest echelons of the Ottoman hierarchy. They were ) Mustafa Ali, Meva’idii’n-Nefa’is ft Kavaidi'l-Mecalis, ed. Cavid Baysun (Istanbul:

Osman Yalcin Matbaasi, 1956), 177-8. The translation is based on Necipoglu’s in “Stleymaniye Complex,” 99. *' Peirce, Imperial Harem, 198-212; idem, “Gender and Sexual Propriety in Ottoman Royal Women’s Patronage,” in Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societes,

ed. D. F. Ruggles (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 53-68.

INTRODUCTION 13 recruited primarily through the devsirme, the practice whereby the state levied non-Muslim children as tax from certain rural regions, then trained them at the Palace in Istanbul.” The devsirme system created well-trained officials whose sole allegiance was to the sultan,

and who were recruited and assigned posts on the basis of merit. Unlike the established notable Muslim families, they were bereft both of a network of relatives and customary patron-client relationships; in other words, they had no allegiances outside the Ottoman dynasty. Also, unlike the tribal clans of the empire, such as the Janpulatoglus

in Aleppo’s hinterland, they were bereft of landed property and of a power base in their native villages. Many devsirme individuals were

aware of their village of origin, and many endowed structures in them, such as Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, both of whom also built in Aleppo. However, their integration into the imperial elite alienated them so thoroughly from their biological relatives that a “return” was impossible: these individuals had been Ottomanized. The established Muslim urban notable or ‘ulamd’ families, in the capital or in provincial cities, created a power base for their social group through the appropriation of positions and stipends in charitable endowments and the deployment of the religious sciences of which they emerged as privileged interpreters. These professions were often monopolized by families across generations. These individuals received the longest entries in biographical dictionaries that constitute primary sources for the history of Aleppo. Such career choices were unavailable for men with devszrme origins. While the latter could obtain high offices in the empire, they often did not own their property: they merely disposed of its use until their death. All property, all land, was the ultimate possession of the state: “Money and material goods accumulated by powerful individuals in the service of the state Gncluding members of the dynasty) were viewed as property

on loan, the temporary usufruct of which ceased when the owner left office or died.”*? Ottoman officials of devsirme origin thus could 2 Halil Inalcik with Donald Quataert, eds., An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Metin Kunt, The Sultan’s Servants: The Transformation of Provincial Government, 1550-1650 (New

York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

“systematic confiscation of the estates of deceased notables... became a means of filling the state treasury ... estates were inventoried immediately upon the death of an individual and often ruthlessly siezed...” Peirce, Imperial Harem, 148.

14 CHAPTER ONE not bequeath their property to their children, just as they could not bequeath them their social status: as free-born Muslims, their offspring

could integrate into mainstream society. The legal mechanism of wagf provided a method to control their

wealth after their death, to bestow some of it to their children. Through wagf, real property and capital in possession of the patron could be turned into an endowment. The wagfiyya, or the endowment deed, often stipulated that some of the salaried positions of the wag? (often tawliya or stewardship, but other positions as well) were

to be held by the children of the patron, or the children of his or her siblings or clents. Often, a provincial endowment offered a financial base for a family to settle in a city, as in the case of the ‘Adiliyya Complex in Aleppo. Other loved ones, such as slave concubines, sometimes received stipends from the usufruct of their waqfs for the duration of their lives.” In this light, the insistence of wagfiyya documents on the perpetuity of the contract they represent acquires a new light. ‘The poignancy of the patrons’ desire to order the future, to provide for their progeny comes through in wagfiyya documents: the list of conditions of the wagf concludes with formulas such as: “yabqa dhalika ‘ala mamarr

al-ayyam wa’l-shuhtr wa’l-a‘wam...” (“This is to remain through the passing of days and months and years...”).” This is a standard expression for this type of document, to be sure, but its repetition suggests a deep-rooted social anxiety that the mechanism of the endowment addressed. For Ottoman officials, whose careers and lives

were precarious, the notion of a perpetual contract to benefit the community and their descendants must have held a special significance. Indeed, of the patrons discussed in this study, Sokoli Mehmed Pasha

and Ipshir Pasha were executed; Husrev Pasha starved himself to death. Yet each of these men provided incomes for their households and placed their imprint on the imperial landscape through wagf.

** Ankara, Vakiflar Genel Miidiirliigii (General Directorate of Charitable Endowments, henceforth VGM), Waaqfiyya of Ahmed Pasha, Aleppo, 1596, defter 60872, 177, provided daily stipends for three manumitted slave women (presumably the patron’s concubines) for the duration of their lives. This endowment is analyzed in Chapter 3. * VGM, Wagfiyya of Husrev Pasha, Aleppo, 1561, defter 583, p. 150.

INTRODUCTION Id Wagf was the means through which the servants of the Sultan left

a permanent mark on the terrain of the empire, on the city’s surface. The makeup of the city, then, was a direct consequence of social and legal realities of the Ottoman empire.

Trends in Previous Scholarship

The visual culture of Ottoman Aleppo has not been the object of detailed art historical studies. Yasser Tabbaa examined the Ayyubid period of the city’s architecture,“ and Michael Meinecke’s wide-ranging work on Mamluk architecture is valuable for the study of Aleppo’s early Ottoman period.” In addition, an article by Cigdem Kafescioglu compared the sixteenth-century architecture of Damascus and Aleppo, focusing primarily on the style of the mosques of the major complexes

endowed by Ottoman patrons.” Beyond art history, scholars from other disciplines have interpreted some of the material. ‘The dominant

threads in the historiography of Aleppo are the local urban studies and the French school of research on the city and its society. A vibrant local tradition of historiography takes as its object the

city of Aleppo as an entity in and of itself. The early modern antecedents of this discourse are analyzed in Chapter 6. Recent stud-

les are profoundly indebted to the monumental local histories of Raghib al-Tabbakh (1877-1951) and Kamil al-Ghazzi (1853?-1933), completed in the early 1920’s.”” The two works have enjoyed a wide audience, both scholarly and popular, and their reissue in the early

1990’s is a testament to their enduring appeal. [‘lam al-nubala’ *° Art historian Yasser Tabbaa devoted a monograph to the Ayyubid architecture in Aleppo: Constructions of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo (University Park, PA:

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997); idem, “Circles of Power: Palace, Citadel and City in Ayyubid Aleppo,” Ars Onentals 23 (1993): 181-199. “7 Michael Meinecke, Die mamlukische Architektur in Agypten und Synien (648/ 1250 bis

923/ 1517), 2 vols. (Glickstadt: Verlag J. J. Augustin, 1992). 8 Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus.” *) The new editions of each work have been used here: Kamil al-Ghazzi, Aitab Nahr al-Dhahab ft Tarikh Halab, 2nd ed., 3 vols, edited and introduced by Shawqi Sha‘th and Mahmud Fakhuri (Aleppo: Dar al-Qalam al-‘Arabi, 1991-1993, Ong. ed. Aleppo: al-Matba‘a al-Ma@rutniyya, 1923-26); Raghib al-Tabbakh, [lam al-nubala@ bi-tavikh Halab al-shahb@, 2nd ed., 7 vols. and index volume, edited by Muhammad

Kamal (Aleppo: Dar al-Qalam al-‘Arabi, 1988-1992, Orig. ed. Aleppo: al-Matba‘a al-‘Ilmiyya, 1923-1926).

16 CHAPTER ONE bi-tartkh Ealab al-shahba@’ by ‘Tabbakh and Aztab Nahr al-Dhahab ft

Tarkh Halab by Ghazzi follow in form the most established genres of traditional Arabic historiography: the biographical dictionary and the historical topography. Faithful to the genre, these books are intertextual: they extensively quote passages from previous histories of

Aleppo. Both works rely on first hand knowledge of the city, and | both quote from legal documents to discuss endowments. ‘They preserve parts of earlier chronicles that are lost or inaccessible and provide a snapshot of the state of key buildings at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, lke many works in the genres to which they belong, the two authors privilege information on the social use

of buildings rather than their visual character, a phenomenon discussed in Chapter 6. The authors were leading intellectuals of Aleppo;

their adherence to “traditional” historical formats notwithstanding, their production of knowledge about the history of the city has a modern sensibility.°° The current study uses the wealth of information provided in each, but recognizes the books as modern, scholarly creations that are artifacts of the 1920's. Ghazzi and Tabbakh are the most prominent representatives of historical writing by Aleppines on Aleppo that has thrived throughout the history of the city and has continued unabated since independence, when Aleppo became secondary to the political capital, Damascus. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this endeavor coalesced around the local historical association, Jam‘iyyat al-‘Adiyyat (the Archaeological

Society), founded in the early 1930’s.°' It included monographs on history, collections of proverbs, annotated editions of archival and narrative sources on the city, by Ferdinand ‘Taoutel and Gabriel Rabbath,

among others, and more recently Mahmiid Hiraytani.*? The work °° For a discussion of the historical discourse of Ghazzi and Tabbakh, see Keith Watenpaugh, Beng Modern in the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming). *' The Jam‘iyyat al-‘Adiyyat published a bilingual journal, La revue archéologique syrienne/ Majallat al-‘Adwyyat al-Suriyya. | am currently researching the institutions that fostered knowledge on the built environment in early twentieth-century Syria. See

my “Museums and the Construction of National History in Syria and Lebanon,” in The British and French Mandates in Comparative Perspective, ed. Nadine Méouchy and

Peter Sluglett (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004): 185-202. *’ Among their published work, the most relevant are, Ferdinand Taoutel, s,j. (Fardinan Tawtil), Watha@’iq tartkhiyya ‘an Halab, vol. 2: Awlya@ Halab ft manzimat alShaykh Wafa’ ma‘ tayamat hayat al-Shaykh Muhammad Abt al-Wafa@ al-kifat (Beirut:

Imprimerie Catholique, 1941); Gabriel Rabbath, “Les mosquées d’Alep. I: Mosquée at-Touté,” Revue Archéologique Syrienne 1932: 87-119 and “II: La Grande-Mosquée,”

INTRODUCTION 17 of Khayr al-Din al-Asadrt (1900-1971) was the most systematic: his numerous books and particularly the posthumously published encyclopedic Mawsi‘at Halab, gave an exhaustive image of the history, as well as the contemporary state of the sites, neighborhoods, lore, cuisine and dialects of the city.*’ Formal and informal intellectual circles in Aleppo emphasize local history, constantly rehearsed through lectures, site visits, journal articles and monographs. During my fieldwork I attended lively discussions on local architecture at Aleppo University and the Syndicate of Architects and Engineers, among other local societies. These bodies contribute to a dynamic and multivocal discourse on the history of the city.** Published mostly in Arabic, this discourse

is aware of the broader debates in the history of Aleppo, both in the Arab world and the West.* In Western scholarship, the most influential intervention is undoubtedly Jean Sauvaget’s 1941 monograph, Alep: Essat sur le développement d’une grande ville syrienne, des ornigines au milieu du XIX° siécle.°? A French

arabisant profoundly interested in urban history, Sauvaget (1901-1950)

was based at what became the Institut Francais d’Etudes Arabes de Damas, the Damascus branch of a network of similar French centers established in Middle Eastern capitals, that contributed in the interwar period to the creation of a savoir colonial.’’ His numerous articles and Revue Archéologique Syrienne I (1934): 1-12, and IV (1935): 5-9, and Mahmiid Hiraytani, Halab: Aswaig “al-Mdineh,” tatawwur al-mulkiyya al“agariyya wa'l-faahyyat al-iqhsadiyya

wal-yumayya, 1927-1980 (Damascus: Manshurat Wizarat al-Thaqafa, 1991). °° Muhammad Khayr al-Din al-Asadi, Mawsii‘at Halab al-mugarana, ed. Muhammad Kamal, 7 vols. (Aleppo: Aleppo University, 1981-1988). ** See for example, Niqabat al-muhandisin, Far‘ Halab, Lajnat Qism al-handasa al-mi‘mariyya, A‘mal al-muhandis wa’l-mi‘mar Bashir Muhandis (Aleppo: n.p., 1998). Najwa ‘Uthman, Al-handasa al-insha’iyya ft masajd Halab (Aleppo: Manshurat Jami‘at Halab, 1413 [1992]). *° However, the significant discourse on Ottoman history in Turkish was largely unknown to this intellectual community. © Jean Sauvaget, Alep: Essai sur le développement d’une grande ville syrienne, des origines

au milieu du XIX* siécle, 2 vols (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1941). The book was published in the context of a series commissioned by the colonial French power to study the

lands under mandate: Haut Commissariat de Etat Francais en Syrie et au Liban, Service des Antiquités, Bibliotheque archéologique et historique, vol. XXXVI. *’ The annual reports which Sauvaget and his colleagues wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic are preserved in Nantes, at the archives of the Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres. For a documentary history of IFEAD, see Renaud Avez, L’Institut frangats de Damas au Palas Azem (1922-1946) a travers les arches, (Damascus: Institut Frangais de Damas, 1993). Frangois-Xavier Trégan, “Approche des savoirs de l'Institut Francais de Damas: a la recherche d’un temps mandataire,” in The British and French Mandates in Comparative Perspectwe, ed. Nadine

Meouchy and Peter Sluglett (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), 235-247.

18 CHAPTER ONE monographs addressed aspects of Islamic architecture in what was then Syria under French Mandate, with an emphasis on the medieval

period.*® In addition to the volume and quality of his writing, Sauvaget’s most enduring legacy was a conceptual framework for the study of the Arab lands, and particularly Syria.°” Sauvaget’s Alep pioneered the combined use of architectural evidence and medieval textual sources in Arabic. Several assumptions underlie Sauvaget’s work. First, he equated political and administrative stability with social harmony, the construction of public buildings and the regularity of urban planning. He asserted this strict cause-and-effect relationship even in

the absence of evidence. Second, Sauvaget’s work assumed the Hellenistic-Roman grid-plan city as an ideal type and ascribed a moral superiority to this type. As a result of this conviction, his history of Aleppo demonstrated the slow and inexorable degeneration of this ideal type, which reached its lowest point during the Ottoman period.*” As such, Sauvaget viewed the history of Aleppo as a moral parable which demonstrates, ultimately, the superiority of the European

cultural ideal. In short, Sauvaget created a framework for the study of Mushm cities along the Mediterranean littoral that centered on a narrative of irreversible decline from the rational grid plan of classical antiquity to the slow degeneration into irrational diagonals, meandering alleys and culs-de-sac of the Muslim present. In addition, Sauvaget’s definition of Aleppo as a “Syrian city” throughout *’ For a list of his works, see the Bibliography. Many influential articles were reprinted in: Dominique and Jeanine Sourdel, Mémonal Jean Sauvaget, 2 vols. (Damascus:

Institut Francais de Damas, 1954-1961). _” Exemplified in his book: Jean Sauvaget, Introduction a Vhistotre de ?Orient musulman: Eléments de bibliographie (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1943); Revised by Claude Cahen in 1961, the book appeared in English as: Introduction to the History of the Muslim East

(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965). Most appraisals of Sauvaget’s work tend to be laudatory. The most powerful critique of Sauvaget’s legacy has come from André Raymond, discussed below. Other important critiques include: R. Stephen Humphreys, Jslamic History: A Framework for Inquiry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 235-238. Nasser Rabbat pointed out that despite the

critique, the main tenets for Sauvaget’s framework have not been problematized: Nasser O. Rabbat, “Mamluk ‘Throne Halls: Qubba or Iwan?” Ars Oneniahs 23 (1993): 217, note 8. See also: H. Adnan Erzi, “J. Sauvaget’nin ‘Les lerets [sic] Mamlouks de Syne’ Adi Eseri Hakkinda,” Vakeflar Dergist IL (1942): 475-476; and M. Fuad Kopriili, “J. Sauvaget’nin “Les Caravanserails syriens de [sic] hadjdj de Constantinople’ Adh Eser1 Hakkinda,” Vakiflar Dergisi IL (1942): 468-472. * ‘The only redeeming feature of this period, according to Sauvaget’s presentation, is the European presence in the city, which, he asserts, caused the prosperity of Aleppo. The work contains such statements as: “L’Alep des Ottomans n’est qu’un trompel’oeil: une fagade somptueuse derriére laquelle il n’y a que des ruines.” Alep, 239.

INTRODUCTION 19 its history reinforced its ink with the twentieth-century state, rather than any pre-modern political, cultural or religious entity. André Raymond, the most important historian of the Arab Middle

East in the Ottoman period, formulated a powerful critique of Sauvaget’s framework.*' Raymond, as well as scholars trained and influenced by him, dominate French-language scholarship on this region and time period; his method, a rigorous social history reliant

on archival documents and interested in urban process, has been profoundly influential. Like Sauvaget, Raymond combines a conceptual vision with abundant scholarship of a comparative scope.” Raymond’s work addresses Aleppo from the point of view of urban-

ism, social and economic history and demography.* Without the work of Raymond, studies such as this would be bereft of basic factual and conceptual building blocks. Building upon the social history of Raymond and others, the current book addresses issues they do not cover, including the complex history of urban form viewed both synchronically and diachronically, and the examination of patronage; it also contextualizes and critiques

specific arguments. A detailed study of a specific city over a long period yields insights that are not discernible in broader comparative studies. The work of Raymond and others, particularly Michael

Meinecke, implies the notion of a local “national style,” identified | with Mamluk visual culture. In their discussion of provincial Ottoman

*' Raymond’s critique of Sauvaget appears in a number of writings. He summed up the field of Islamic urban studies and provided a critical reassessment of Sauvaget’s

role within it in his “Islamic City, Arab City: Oriental Myths and Recent Views,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 21 (1994): 3-18. *” Raymond’s ground-breaking study was: André Raymond, Artisans et commergants

au Care au XVII’ siécle, 2 vols. (Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas, 1973-4). * ‘The most important articles which deal with Aleppo include: André Raymond, “Les grands waqfs et lorganisation de l’espace urbain 42 Alep et au Caire a l’€poque ottomane (XVI°“-XVIJf siécles),” Bulletin d’Etudes Onrentales 31 (1979): 113-132; idem,

“Groupes sociaux et géographie urbaine a Alep au XVIII® siécle,” In Philipp, Thomas, ed. The Syrian Land in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century: The Common and the Specific in the Historical Experience, Berliner Islamstudien, Band 5, (Stuttgart: Franz

Steiner Verlag, 1992): 147-163; and idem, “The Population of Aleppo in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries according to Ottoman Census Documents.” International Journal of Middle East Studies IFMES) 16 (1984): 447-60. See also his comparative monograph, Grandes villes arabes a V’époque ottomane (Paris: Sindbad, 1985);

which also appeared in an English version: The Great Arab Cities in the 16th-18th centunes: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 1984). A recent volume includes reprints of some of the above: idem, La ville arabe, Alep, a Vépoque olttomane (Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas, 1998).

20 CHAPTER ONE architecture, they opposed the persistence of the “national style,” that is, the native or traditional styles of the Arab provinces, to the imposition of the official and imperial style from Istanbul. He asserted that throughout the 350 years of Ottoman rule, the official style only superficially influenced the “national” style.“* Michael Meinecke postulated the existence of local traditions of craftsmanship, whose work

endured seemingly with little change through the Mamluk period and beyond.* While the simultaneous presence of a variety of visual repertories in Ottoman Aleppo is clear, the current study examines the specific imperial, urban, visual and functional contexts that might have contnibuted to the choices made in architectural form. Additional valuable interventions from a variety of disciplines have informed the current study. The urban geographer Jean-Claude David examined both the past and the present of Aleppo with an emphasis

on the practice of space and the adaptation and reuse of historic structures.*° The geographers Heinz Gaube and Eugen Wirth produced

a detailed study of the urban fabric of Aleppo, with an emphasis on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and their detailed urban map constitutes a fundamental building block of any study.*’ The current book also relies on the work of ‘Abd al-Kartm Rafiq on the socio-

economic history of the Bilad al-Sham under the Ottomans,*’ of Abraham Marcus on the social history of eighteenth-century Aleppo,”

and of Bruce Masters on economic and intellectual history.’ “ Raymond, Great Arab Cites. * Michael Meinecke, “Mamluk Architecture. Regional Architectural Traditions: Evolution and Interrelations,” Damaszener Mitteilugen 2 (1985): 163-75, Plates 48-50.

*© For a full list of David’s work, see the Bibliography. The most relevant studies are: Jean-Claude David, “Domaines et limites de l’architecture d’empire dans une capitale provinciale,” Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 62:4 (1991): 169-194; idem, Wagf d’lpstr Pasa; idem, et al., La Suwayqat ‘Alt a Alep (Damascus:

Institut Frangais de Damas, 1998). *” Heinz Gaube and Eugen Wirth, Aleppo. Historische und geographische Beitrdage zur baulichen Gestaltung, zur sozialen Organisation und zur wirtschafilichen Dynamik einer vorderasia-

tischen Fernhandelsmetropole (Twibinger Atlas des Vorderen Onents, Beihefte, Reihe B, No.

58) (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1984). 8 “Abd al-Karim Rafiq, Al-Grab wa’l-uthmaniyyiin 1516-1916, 2nd ed. (Damascus: Maktabat Atlas, 1993; Orig. 1974); idem, Buhith fr’l-tarikh al-iqhsadi wa’l-ytimat hbilad al-Sham fi’l-asr al-hadith (Damascus: n.p., 1985); idem, The Province of Damascus

1723-1783 (Beirut: Khayats, 1966). For additional references, see Bibliography. * Abraham Marcus, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo In the Exghteenth

Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989). °° Bruce Masters, The Ongins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East: Mercantilism and the Islamic Economy in Aleppo, 1600-1750 (New York and London: New York University Press, 1988). This book rests on the notion that the Ottomans

INTRODUCTION 21 The current book is also situated within the recent trend in the architectural and urban historiography of Ottoman cities within Ottoman cultural studies. While focusing primarily on the rich heritage of the imperial center, the wide-ranging work of Aptullah Kuran and especially Gilru Necipoglu constitute the most fundamental references. Recent work on the urbanization of Ottoman Istanbul by Selma Akyazic1 Ozkocgak and Cigdem Kafescioglu emphasized the role of mosque complexes and raised issues related to the imageability of cities.°’ Beyond the capital, the work of Doris BehrensAbouseif on Ottoman Cairo clarifies the relationship between social institutions and architecture.’ The essays included in The Ottoman City and Its Parts, exploring aspects of Ottoman urban culture, have suggested avenues for my research.’ In particular, Irene Bierman’s study of the Ottomanization of the cities of Crete in the seventeenth century raised an important set of issues on cultural practice at that time and place, which this study asks of early Ottoman Aleppo.* Sources and Method

The present study defines sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Aleppo as an Ottoman city. Conceptualized as a site of encounter, Aleppo can only be understood through the intersection of sources from the

suffered from an underdeveloped sense of mercantilist realities that eventually led to the preponderance of the West in the empire’s economy. By contrast, Palmira Brummett develops a notion of Ottoman commercial agency in her Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994).

*! Selma Akyazic:1 Ozkocgak, “The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in the Sixteenth Century,” (Ph.D. Diss., University of London, 1997). Cigdem Kafescioglu,

“The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth Century,” (Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University, 1996), and idem, “Heavenly

and Unblessed, Splendid and Artless: Mehmed II’s Mosque Complex in Istanbul in the Eyes of its Contemporaries,” in Essays in Honor of Aptullah Kuran, eds. Cigdem Kafescioglu and Lucienne ‘Thys-Senocak (Istanbul: Yapi Kredi, 1999), 211-222. *’ Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt’s Adjustment of Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Wagf and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th centuries) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994).

* Trene A. Bierman, Rifa’at A. Abou-El-Haj, and Donald Preziosi, eds., The Ottoman City and its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order (New Rochelle, NY: Aristide

Caratzas, 1991).

* Trene A. Bierman, “The Ottomanization of Crete,” in Bierman et al, eds., Oitoman City, 53-75; idem, “Urban ‘Transformations and Political Hegemonies,” Urbanism in Islam (ICUIT II) (Tokyo: The Middle East Culture Center, 1994), 301-309; idem, “Franchising Ottoman Istanbul.”

22 CHAPTER ONE center and the periphery. By combining sources in various languages from both the center and the periphery, local agency comes to light, along with a sense of processes of negotiation, cooptation and erasure. Ihis necessitates for the scholar complex travels across disciplnes and territory. ‘The insistence on the study of a range of cultural

productions at any given time, on the use of both Arabic and Ottoman-language sources, and archival materials preserved both in formerly provincial, now Syrian, and formerly imperial, now Turkish, locations entailed substantial fieldwork in Aleppo, Damascus, Cairo, Istanbul, and Ankara.” In terms of archival material, this study uses most extensively wagfiyya documents, or endowment deeds, preserved partly in Aleppo, but also at the Vakiflar Genel Miidiirliigii in Ankara, and at the Basbakanhk Arsivi in Istanbul. Imperial decrees preserved

at Markaz al-Watha’iq al-Wataniyya in Damascus were also used. These types of documents are privileged because of their relevance to the study of architecture and urban life, and because they have been relatively neglected in the study of the region: many Ottoman social historians rely heavily on shari‘a court records.°® Combining sources in various languages from both the center and the periphery makes it possible to emphasize local agency and brings to light processes of negotiation, cooptation and erasure that are integral to the imperial encounter. Archival documents are artifacts that acquire meaning within a field of similar creations. ‘They are not transparent sources of information; they need to be read critically. The importance of wagfiyyas for the study of architecture and urban life has long been recognized.”’

Typically such documents begin with a preamble that rehearses injunctions to build communal structures from the Qur’an and the Hadith, underscores the religious importance of such projects, names

°° Bruce Masters similarly uses materials in both Arabic and Ottoman. °° Numerous studies in Ottoman social history, have used shari‘a court records, including those by Marcus, Raymond, and Masters. ’ For waqf in the Ottoman context, see John Robert Barnes, An Introduction to Rehgious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1986). A classic study of Mamluk

Cairo that relies on waqf documents is: M. Muhammad Amin, Al-Awgaf wa’l-hayat al-ytumawya ft Misr 648-923/ 1250-1517 (Cairo, 1980). For recent evaluation, see Faruk

Bilici, “Bilan des études sur les waqfs ottomans et perspectives a la fin du XX* siécle,” Archiwum Ottomanicum 18 (2000): 105-26 and Miriam Hoexter, “Waqf Studies in the ‘Twentieth Century: The State of the Art,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41 (1998): 474-95.

INTRODUCTION 23 the patron and enumerates his or her titles.°° The body of the document lists, locates and describes every property endowed as wagf, as well as the structures entrusted with religious or communal functions, such as mosques, dervish lodges, and the lke. The third section of the document outlines the conditions which govern the functions of each component of the wagf and the disposal of revenue. A concluding section reiterates the religious and cultural meaning of the act legitimized by the document, and includes the date and a list of witnesses. While often formulaic, wagfiyyas, like any document, are complex cultural artifacts to be read critically. It is often difficult to correlate the detailed yet conventional descriptions of architecture with material remains. However, the most important caveat in the use of a wagfiyya is that this type of document is essentially prescriptive: it records the intentions of the patron at a certain moment. As the hte of the endowment progresses, the interpretation and implementation of the conditions of the endowment remain ongoing active processes shaped by many actors including the mutawalli or endowment administrator, judges and everyday users of the structures. Additional material on the use of space in the central economic district of Aleppo was derived from the archives of the French échelles,

or commercial centers in the Levant, now preserved at the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic in Nantes. The same location also preserves the archives of the French Mandate in Syria in the interwar period, which included inventories of his-

torical buildings, maps, and annual reports by researchers such as , Jean Sauvaget. In addition to archival documents, narrative sources produced both

in Istanbul and in Aleppo have been used, especially when they describe and discuss urban life. This approach revealed that in early modern Ottoman society, different kinds of knowledge were fostered in different places to reckon with the city: biographical dictionaries and historical topographies were produced locally and in Arabic; universal histories, universal geographies, dynastic histories, books of etiquette, and accounts of imperial journeys illustrated with city views

were produced in Istanbul and in Ottoman. Chapter 6 discusses these sources in depth, in the context of an examination of the image

°° Jihane Tate, “L’ordre de la description dans les wagftyya,” Les cahiers de la recherche architecturale 20/21 (1987): 22-25.

24 CHAPTER ONE of the city as elaborated in textual genres. Biographical dictionaries on the notable men of a given city, while focusing on the lives and achievements of individual subjects, can be used to glean information about acts of patronage, and biographical anecdotes can provide insight onto the use and perception of certain buildings and neighborhoods. Of the biographical dictionaries of Aleppo, the most useful for reconstructing this type of social information are: Radi al-Din Muhammad b. al-Hanbali al-Halabi (d. 971/1563-—4), Durr al-habab fi tartkh ayan Halab,* Abi al-Wafa’ b. ‘Umar al-‘Urdi (1585-1660), Ma‘adin al-dhahab fi’l-ayan al-masharrafa bi-him Halab;° and Muhammad

Amin Al-Muhibbi (1651-1699), Ahulasat al-athar fi a‘yan al-qarn alhadi ‘ashar.°' In addition, numerous now-lost sources are quoted by Ghazzi and ‘Tabbakh. Of the biographical dictionaries of Damascus,

among the most relevant is Najm al-Din Muhammad al-Ghazzi (1570-1651), Al-Kawakib al-s@ira bi-a’yan al-mi?a al-Gshira.*

In addition to these locally composed works in Arabic, a travelogue in Ottoman, Evliya Celebi’s Seyahatname, provides a comprehensive description of Aleppo as well as evidence of the manner in which a prosperous provincial city was perceived by a courtier. In addition, early modern accounts of the city written by non-Mushms are mined for information. Particularly useful for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the travelogue of the Polish Armenian pulgrim Simeon Dpir Lehatsi (b. 1584)%* and the memoirs of European

” Radi al-Din Muhammad b. al-Hanbali al-Halabi, Durr al-habab ft taritkh ayan Halab, Ed. M. Fakhtrt and Y. ‘Abbara, 2 parts in 4 vols. (Damascus: Manshurat Wizarat al-Thiqafa, 1972-1974) (Henceforth [bn al-Hanbalti, 1:1 through 2:2); also Ibn al-Hanbali, Az-zabad wa’d-darab fi tartkh Halab, Ed. Muhammad Altinji (Kuwait: Manshirat markaz al-makhtiitatwa’l-turath, 1988). ®9 Abia al-Wafa b. ‘Umar al-‘Urdi, MaGdin al-dhahab fi’l-ayan al-masharrafa bi-him

Halab, Edited by ‘Abd Allah al-Ghazali (Henceforth al-‘Urdi). There are three editions of this unfinished text. [ use al-Ghazali’s unless otherwise noted. The other

two editions are by Muhammad Altunji (N.p.: Dar al-Mallah, 1987), and ‘Isa Sulayman Abu Salim (Amman: Markaz al-Watha’iq wa-al-Makhtitat, al-Jami ‘ah alUrduniyah, 1992). °' Muhammad Amin Al-Muhibbi, Ahuldsat al-athar fi aan al-qarn al-hadi ‘ashar, 4 vols. (Beirut: Maktabat Khayyat, 1966). ° Najm al-Din Muhammad al-Ghazzi, Al-Kawékib al-s@ira bi-a‘yan al-mi’a al-Gshira,

ed. Jibrail Sulayman Jabbar, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadida, 1979). Evliya Celebi, Evliya Celebi Seyahatnamesi, Vol. 9: Anadolu, Suriye, Hicaz (1671-1672)

(Istanbul: Devlet Matbaasi, 1935). As this edition is in the modern Turkish alphabet, citations are not rendered in Ottoman transliteration. ** Simeon Dpir Lehatsi (b. 1584), “Simeon Tpri Lehats’woy Ughegrut’iwn (16081619),” ed. Nerses Akinian, in Handes Amsoreay (1932-1936). For a Turkish transla-

INTRODUCTION 29 merchants who were longtime residents of Aleppo, Wolffgang Aigen,” William Biddulph,” and the French consul Laurent d’Arvieux (1635— 1702).°’ Used in conjunction with modern travelogues by Europeans

and Ottomans, the texts introduced above provide a rich resource from which an innovative account of the visual past of Aleppo can be woven. Most importantly perhaps, placing Aleppo in its Ottoman, pre-modern context opens up analytical possibilities and an aware-

ness of both local knowledge and a wider cultural context which enrich any investigation of the city’s evolution. The key piece of evidence in this study, however, is the city itself, a repository of cultural meaning. Urban historians have recently begun to use the fabric of the city as a primary source for their investigations. While traditional urban history tends to privilege the social,

political and economic contexts of the spatial environment, this approach recognizes the shape of the city as a repository of cultural meaning. What is productive in this approach is the notion that the shape taken by cities, that is, the appearance and interrelationship of structures and open spaces—houses, streets, quarters, civic buildings, public monuments, gardens—is not arbitrary, nor is it merely the result of authoritative decisions taken by the governing body; rather it is meaningful in and of itself. Indeed, the forms taken by streets and thoroughfares, the configuration of neighborhoods, and the seeming idiosyncrasies of a skyline can

all reveal the history of previous urban tenure. These urban forms expose a heritage of established social and cultural conventions, chains

tion see Polonyali Simeon, Polonyal Simeon’un Seyahainamesi, 1606-1619, trans. Hrand

D. Andreasyan (Istanbul: Istanbul Universitesi Edebiyat Fakiiltesi yayinlari, 1964). ® Wolfigang Aigen, Steban Jahre in Aleppo, 1656-1663, Ed. Andreas Tietze (Vienna: Verlag des Verbandes der Wissenschaftlichen gesellschaften CEsterreichs, 1980). °° William Biddulph, “Part of a Letter of Master William Biddulph from Aleppo,” in Hakluytus Posthumus, or, Purchas His Pilgrimes, Containing a History of the World in Sea

Voyages and Lande Travells by Englishmen and Others, ed. Samuel Purchas (Glasgow: J. MacLehose and Sons, 1905-07), vol. 8, 263-364. The letter was written around 1600. 7 Laurent d’Arvieux (1635-1702), Mémoires du Chevalier d’Arvieux, edited by JeanBaptist Labat, 6 vols. (Paris: C. J. B. Delespine, 1735). See my “A French Humanist

in the Islamic City: The Chevalier d’Arvieux (1635-1702), Merchant and Consul in Aleppo,” Thresholds: The Critical Fournal of Visual Culture 27 (2004): 18-22. In addi-

tion to these sources, valuable information on the eighteenth century is provided in Alexander Russell (1715?-1768), The Natural History of Aleppo: Containing a Description of the City, and the Principal Natural Productions in its Neighbourhood, Together with an Account

of the Climate, Inhabitants, and Diseases, Particularly of the Plague, 2nd ed., revised by

Patrick Russell, 2 vols. (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1794).

26 CHAPTER ONE of compromises between the rights and desires of the individual, the requirements of social subgroups, and the will of the civic authority.” At the same time, however, each generation of urban dwellers remakes the city by manipulating the urban environment in accordance with its view of the past, and its current needs. By continually altering the urban landscape by means of erecting new structures, destroying existing structures and allowing others to remain, urban dwellers make visible the image which they have of their city. As this image cannot be monolithic for the entire population, the physical configuration of the city also retains evidence of civic diversity as well as adversity. Any investigation of a city must entail a diachronic understanding of the city in time and a synchronic understanding of the diverse factors that simultaneously alter the various contexts in which the city can be

contained. ‘hese concerns have warranted detailed and systematic readings of each building complex in this study. With its emphasis on uncovering the spatial orders created by architectural intervention and how they were perceived, this study draws on Henri Lefebvre’s writing on the production of space, not simply as a physical entity, but also as a dynamic conceptual realm.”

Thus space is understood not as an environnment in which social life takes place, but a medium through which social life is produced and reproduced. In addition, through its concern with the manner in which users of buildings envisioned and navigated their cities, this study is inspired by the method of Michel de Certeau and the body of literature on cognitive mapping and urban practice. In L’tnvention du quotidien, de Certeau created a framework for discovering how pedestrians see and interact with urban space.”” The city establishes a spatial environment that provides a range of choices for the pedestrian by showcasing some sites and obscuring others. The arrangement of city spaces controls the visual approach to salient features within

the city and thus defines these features. While streets and sites are designed to force people to proceed in certain ways by preventing some actions and encouraging others, pedestrians always seek to alter °8 Spiro Kostof, The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History (London, 1991), and The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History (London, 1992).

® See especially Henri Lefebvre, La production de Vespace (Paris: Editions Anthropos,

1974), and idem, “Rhythmanalysis of Mediterranean Cities,” in Writings on Crties, trans. E. Kofman and E. Lebas (London: Blackwell, 1996), 228-240.

990. de Certeau, L’invention du quotidien, rev. ed. Luce Giard (Paris: Gallimard,

INTRODUCTION 2/ this order to match their own needs. Changes in the spatial environment reflect the tension between the spatial hierarchy imposed by civic authority and the way visitors and residents navigate urban spaces. Throughout this study, the choices staged for the pedestrian by the various Ottoman buildings and sites in Aleppo are examined and compared with the manner in which written texts (narratives and archival documents) conceptualize space.

Ottomanization and the Layering of Cities

Jean Sauvaget’s classic photograph of Aleppo defines the skyline of the

city with a parade of minarets (Pl. 2).’’ One of the most photogenic aspects of Aleppo, reproduced many times in photographs, postcards and drawn views of the city, the row of Aleppo’s minarets can appear to the art historian as a juxtaposition of architectural exemplars from various periods of Islamic history. The minaret of the Great Mosque

of the Citadel has towered over the city since it was built by the Ayyubid ruler al-Malik al-Zahir Ghazi, a son of Saladin, in the early

thirteenth century.” The square minaret of the Great Mosque of Aleppo, built by the Saljig dynasty in 1090, is unique in the region, and certainly in the city. Alongside these imposing towers, the octagonal minarets of the Mamluks display their elaborately carved shafts. For the pedestrian strolling in Aleppo at the end of the Ottoman period, all the minarets would have been, in a sense, contemporary. ‘The most

prominently visible ones, however, date from the sixteenth century when the large institutional complexes, which they surmount, were constructed. ‘The distinctive Ottoman silhouettes of these complexes— their low hemispherical domes and graceful pencil-shaped minarets—

redefined the skyline of Aleppo. No other provincial city in the empire, perhaps, retains the imprint of the Ottomans in such a way.” If the metaphor of the parade is appropriate to describe the minarets, it 1s because the Ottoman minarets, placed as they are, emphasize "’ Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate XL, probably taken in the 1930’s, from a vantage point facing Bab Antakiyya, looking East. With the accretion of modern high-rise buildings and smog since the 1940’s, this view no longer exists with such clarity, even though all the minarets and the structures they surmount are still extant. ” Tabbaa, “Circles of Power,” 181.

~ «aucune autre ville arabe n’est aussi marquée par cette architecture tellement reconnaissable, venue d’Istanboul.” David, “Domaines,” 169.

28 CHAPTER ONE the rectilinear axis of the central economic district. It is perhaps this carefully crafted skyline, more than any other clue, which indicated the Ottoman will to reshape the city, to make it Ottoman. “Unless a conquered city 1s razed and rebuilt, the surviving signs, when considered diachronically, are viewed against the abiding shadows of other signs from other times and other powers.” Every build-

ing project in an urban setting must necessarily reckon with the preexisting urban fabric. When an imperial power undertakes a prominent building project in a newly conquered city, its meaning is revealed not only through the shape and function of the novel addition to the landscape, but also in the manner in which the exist-

ing urban fabric is recontextualized. In her study of the cities of Crete in the mid-seventeenth century in the wake of their conquest by the Ottoman empire, Irene Bierman termed “Ottomanization” the process of their transformation, which incorporated a building program in these previously Venetian-controlled Christian cities. A crucial feature of this building program, the erection of an imperial mosque complex on a prominent topographic site, ensured that the mosque and its minaret would be the most visible structure to anyone approaching the island’s cities by land and sea. ‘Through symbolically powerful modifications to the built environment and the skyline of the city, the process of Ottomanization both signaled and enforced Ottoman hegemony over the province. The process of Ottomanization of provincial cities varied over time and place. ‘The political, social and economic realities of early sixteenthcentury Aleppo differed from those of mid-seventeenth-century Crete.

However, an Ottoman system, similar yet distinct from that of any other Islamic state, which ordered city life with its laws and regulations, existed in both locations. This system supported—and was supported by—institutions, associated buildings and social functions. The Ottoman system, applied to Aleppo, adapted to the city’s unique situation. The study of Aleppo in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries presents a valuable insight into both the broader paradigm of the Ottoman empire and the specific conditions of a provincial city. In addition to the creation of new structures, this project recontextualized the existing features of the cityscape through reuse of certain sites and buildings, the modification and erasure of others. ‘The reuse of layers of the city’s past are viewed as meaningful actions in the present. “ Bierman, “Ottomanization of Crete,” 53.

INTRODUCTION 29 This study charts the manner in which Aleppo was integrated into the Ottoman empire by analyzing the architectural signs imposed by the Ottomans on Aleppo during the period immediately following conquest. It presents an analysis of the visual culture of this heterogeneous

city at critical transitional points in its history. It combines a synchronic and diachronic study of architectural intervention in order to discern patterns of patronage, shifts in urban planning, and choices

in architectural form. Pursuing these issues over a long period, the study shows that the Ottoman modification of the urban fabric was a highly flexible process with discernible patterns of imperial intervention in the local milieu. While the chapters are organized chronologically, the goal throughout is to present architectural and urban processes both synchronically and diachronically. Chapter Two analyzes the urban pattern of Aleppo in the Mamluk period and charts the subtle changes in architectural signs through the first half of the sixteenth century. It also situates Aleppo within the commercial networks of the early modern world and introduces the special urban character of the central economic district. Chapter Three analyzes the endowments that remade this district into one of the largest and most important covered markets in the world as well as a monumental corridor. In the second half of the sixteenth century Ottoman officials

constructed large multi-functional building complexes which were integrated into an empire-wide network of charitable endowments (wagf). Deliberate choices in architectural form changed the profile of the city, creating a monumental corridor and a distinctive skyline, while choices in the assigned functions of buildings modified the uses of urban quarters. Chapter Four examines the institutional complexes built in the seventeenth century, when, following a major historic rupture, a series of violent rebellions at the turn of the six-— teenth century, the dominant pattern and scale of Ottoman patronage in Aleppo shifted. New constructions were now dispersed in various sections of the city and included a greater variety of urban functions. Dervish lodges located on the urban periphery became the most important outlets for patronage, with implications for the shift in the boundaries between the city and the wilderness. Chapter Five returns to the central monumental corridor to map Ottoman intervention on older structures and the appropriation of specific formal elements associated with past layers of the city’s history. ‘This chapter shows that some structures assumed to have been medieval were in fact significantly altered in the Ottoman period. These alterations

30 CHAPTER ONE constitute the Ottomanization of the past, that 1s, the appropriation by the ruling group of the visible past of the city. ‘his chapter places new interventions on older structures in the context of an ongoing, multilayered dialogue between the ruling group, the urban dwellers, and the past of the city as embodied in buildings and spaces created by previous dynasties. Indeed, Ottomans remade the urban fabric of a provincial city not only by creating new buildings, but also by destroying older buildings, allowing others to remain, and modifying yet others according to Ottoman expectations of architecture and the needs of rituals reflective of the new social order. Through these different means, Ottoman hegemony was articulated in the urban space. Chapter 6 investigates the way the city was conceptualized and represented in text and painting. Textual genres from a number of traditions, and in both Arabic and Ottoman, are compared in light of what they reveal about the way people defined and

perceived cities, how they understood urban life, and how they ascribed meaning to the built environment. Chapter Seven as an epilogue reviews and refines the critical issues in the Ottomanization of Aleppo, and considers the implications of the conclusions to other cities in the Ottoman empire and the early modern Mediterranean. Throughout the book each building complex is systematically examined in terms of its conception as reflected in the endowment deed, its form and organization, its placement within the urban fabric and its relation to surrounding structures. Such detailed study of each building complex, which synthesizes various types of evidence, fills a gap in

the scholarship and provides the foundation for the discussion of broader issues, including the choices in the form of buildings and their

importance, and the urban hegemonies to which they bear witness. The book posits that an Ottoman way of integrating cities within the empire was a highly flexible yet recognizable process, whose evolution

can be traced in Aleppo in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thus various kinds of evidence are brought to bear on the process of Ottomanization, to contribute to the ongoing discovery and interpretation of signs from the past, like those traced in writing on the doors of the ‘Adiliyya Mosque.

CHAPTER TWO

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT

This chapter considers the context of sixteenth century Aleppine architecture. It presents the urban character of the Mamluk city, and charts the manner in which Aleppo was integrated into the Ottoman empire by analyzing the architectural signs imposed by the Ottomans during the period immediately following conquest, and defining the character

of patronage in the Ottoman period. It introduces the major urban developments of the sixteenth century and clarifies their link to the rise of Aleppo in the global networks of commerce and manufacture.

The Late Mamluk City

The Ottomans inherited a city layered with monuments constructed by successive dynasties since the earliest periods of human civilization, and that most recently served as a Mamluk regional capital (Fig. 1).'

In terms of urban form, Aleppo’s ramparts stood as urban boundaries and the gates provided controllable access points into the urban core, despite the development of suburban neighborhoods. ‘The last Mamluk sultan Qansauh al-Ghuri renovated the ramparts as well as the citadel to render them able to withstand artillery.” Consequently, the ramparts, particularly at urban thresholds, often bear large-scale epigraphy in a Mamluk hand displaying the name and titles of the patron, as well as roundels known as ranks, the distinctive circular Mamluk blazons that were ubiquitous markers in that society.”

' On the urbanism of late Mamlak Aleppo see Sauvaget, Alep, chpt. 9, and Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, vol. 1, 180-185.

* By the late Mamluk period, Aleppo’s ramparts were considered antiquated because they could not withstand artillery. Sauvaget, Alep, discusses the ramparts in each chapter; MCIA 1:1, Chapter |: “Fortifications d’Alep,” 29-76. Jean Sauvaget, “L’enceinte primitive de la ville d’Alep,” In Meélanges de l’Institut Frangais de Damas, vol. | (1929): 133-159; Tabbaa, Constructions of Power, 19-23. > ED, s.v. “Rank,” by Nasser Rabbat.

32 CHAPTER TWO Beyond the walled city, extra-urban neighborhoods had grown since

the medieval period, localized around an entrance to a commercial or ceremonial artery. They included the neighborhoods of Judayda (iterally, “the little new one”) and Saliba to the northwest that housed the communal institutions of local Christians. Beyond the Gate of Bab al-Maqam to the south stood the neighborhood of Maqamat that con-

tained Maqam Ibrahim, a shrine to the Prophet Abraham, and the ancient Salihin cemetery.* Urbanization extended to the city’s eastern periphery, where industries related to the caravan trade were located on the northeastern “antenna” formed by the Banqiisa neighborhood. The large open space at the foot of the citadel’s gate, the ‘Taht alQal‘a, was a focus for commercial and ceremonial activities. There the Mamluk troops paraded weekly, and a horse market was held. Nearby the Mamluk governor hosted audiences twice a week at the Dar al-

‘Adl (House of Justice).° From the west foot of the citadel to Bab Antakiyya (Antioch Gate) stretched the city’s ancient rectilinear spine, its cardo maximus, where its most ancient monuments were located,

including the Great Mosque and the Madrasa Hallawiyya, both antique religious enclosures converted into mosques in the medieval period. This spine was also the focus of increased commercial activity in the fifteenth century. In the Ayyubid period, a ceremonial axis

lined with monuments had lnked the citadel to Maqamat, and the shrine of Abraham on the citadel to the shrine of Abraham outside the gate.’ While the Mamluks did not maintain the Ayyubid ceremonies along this axis, they nonetheless added their own monuments

along it as well, such as the Mosque-Mausoleum of Aqbugha alUtrish (1399-1410), considered to feature the most elegant Mamluk facade in Aleppo.®

* The city’s association with the Prophet Abraham is ancient and will be discussed below. The extramural shrine of Abraham is paralleled by another Maqam Ibrahim in the citadel, marked by an Ayyubid mosque, Tabbaa, Constructions of Power. The Salihin cemetery was the most important extramural Muslim cemetery of Aleppo. For the locations of cemeteries, see Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate LXIL. » Sauvaget, Alep, Chapter 9; Masters, Origins of Dominance, see Chapter IV: “The Commercial Institutions of a Caravan City,” 110-145. Banqisa received almost no patronage in the Ottoman period. ® Sauvaget, Alep, 169. Nasser Rabbat, “The Ideological Significance of the Dar al-‘Adl in the Medieval Islamic Orient,” J7/MES 27:1 (1995): 3-28. ’ ‘Tabbaa, Constructions of Power, 68-69, and fig. 18.

* On the Mosque-Mausoleum of Aqbugha al-Utriish: Meinecke, Mamliikische Architektur, Cat. no. 26A/2; MCIA 362-66; Sauvaget, Alep, 177, fig. 45, Pl. XXX VIL.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 33 Mamluk monuments were the result of the patronage of powerful amirs (military commanders) who favored building complexes that

featured the patron’s mausoleum prominently, signaled by a dome. In the major cities of their empire, like Cairo, Jerusalem, Aleppo and Damascus, Mamluk patrons tended to place their monuments on pre-existing urban arteries, adjusting to the dense urban fabric, rather than isolating them as setpieces.” This general feature was borne out in Aleppo, where Mamluk structures were localized along the northeastern antenna, the citadel-Maqamat axis, and less prominently, the citadel-Antioch Gate road. The distinctive, elegantly carved

stone masonry of the Mamluk architecture of Aleppo and its polychrome decorative repertoire remained ubiquitous features of the city’s visual language through the Ottoman period. The patronage career of the last Mamluk governor, Khair Bak (d. 1522) is useful both to illustrate the urban distribution of monu-

ments in the late Mamluk period and to introduce the Mamluk architectural “signature.” His two major monuments in Aleppo, a mausoleum and a caravanserai reflect a customary emphasis on two urban areas.’ The mausoleum was built in 1514 outside Bab alMaqam, in the Maqamat quarter,'' highlighting the continuing impor-

tance of this area as a locus of burial. In plan, the Turba of Kha’ir Bak (Pl. 3) consists of an zwdn (three-sided vaulted room) flanked by two domed rooms. ‘The domes resting on octagonal drums are clearly

visible from the exterior. The facade features a series of recessed niches, along which runs a continuous band of large scale writing. Blazons appear between the niches, and the doors are flanked by horizontal bands of joggled, multi-colored stones (usually limestone and basalt), in a technique known as ablaq, considered typical of the

Mamluk period.'* The visual idiom of this facade, typical of the ” For an analysis of this process in Cairo, see Howayda al-Harithy, “The Concept of Space in Mamluk Architecture,” Mugarnas 18 (2001): 73-93. '° In addition, Kha’ir Bak built a fountain in the Suwayqat ‘Ali quarter near the commercial spine in 1508 (Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 186; Gaube, Jnschnften, No. 11) and he renovated the Khan Ujkhan (discussed below). '' Tt is datable by inscription: MCIA 1:2, 406-7, no. 276. * On the Turba of Kha’ir Bak: Jean Sauvaget, “Inventaire des monuments musulmans de la ville d’Alep,” Revue des études islamiques 5:1 (1931), 96 (Henceforth Sauvaget,

“Inventaire’); Gaube and Wirth, 161, Cat. No. 656, fig. 38; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, vol. 2, 469, Cat. No. 47/95; Tabbakh 2, V, 406; This shrine is sometimes known today as Shaykh ‘Ali: Muhammad As‘ad Talas, Al-Athar al-islamuyya wa'l-tarikluyya ft Halab (Damascus: Matbu‘at Mudiriyyat al-Athar al-“Amma {i Siirtyya, 1956), 125.

34 CHAPTER TWO Mamluk monumental architecture of Aleppo, was to remain a feature of the city’s architecture in the Ottoman era. The last Mamluk governor’s second major work, the caravanserai known as Khan Kha’ir Bak'’ represented a trend that had begun in the late fifteenth century: the concentration of major commercial buildings along the street which led from the Antioch Gate to the Citadel.

Previously, caravanserais tended to be located outside of the walled city; now they occupied its center. Caravanserais built in the central location in the late Mamluk period include the Khan of the Amir Abrak (1510)'* (Pl. 4) and the Caravanserai of the Governor Azdamur,

better known as Khan al-Sabin (beg. 1479) (PL. 5).'° Similar monumental caravanserais with street facades featuring elaborate inscriptions were built in other sections of the city as well, such as the Khan al-Qadi in the Bab Qinnesrin quarter,'® Khan al-Ikinji outside Bab

Banqusa on the northeastern “antenna,”'’ and the Khan Ujkhan in the al-Mar‘ashli quarter outside of the Bab al-Nasr to the north (Pl. 6).'° This flurry of commercial buildings corresponds in the historical record with the revitalization of trade with Aleppo’s rich

hinterland, and of the long-distance trade beyond. The trend of Mamluk officials’ endowing monumental commercial buildings in

Ghazzi 2, II, 151; Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 96, no. 59; Sauvaget, Alep, 172, n. 649, Alep 2, Pl. XXII, LIX (groundplan); Gaube and Wirth, Cat. No. 171; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, v. 1, fig. 137 (groundplan), Cat. no. 47/94.

Also called Khan al-Qassabiyya: Ghazzi 2, II, 178; Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 94, no. 57; Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XX XI, LIX (Groundplan); MCIA 1:2, 403-404, inscription 271 and 272, MCIA 2, Plate CLX Xb; Gaube and Wirth, Cat. No. 61; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, Cat. No. 47/72, vol. 1, Pl. 129b, groundplan: fig. 136.

'° Khan al-Sabin will be discussed further later. Ibn al-Hanbali 1:1, 286-290; Ghazzi 2, Il, 151; Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 97, no. 62; Sauvaget, Alep, 172, n. 649; Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XXII and XXIII; Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 137; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, Gat. No. 42/194, v. 1, fig. 134 (groundplan), v. 2, 435. ‘© Khan al-Qadr is the oldest extant caravanserai in Aleppo. According to epigraphy

it predates 1441. Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 107, no. 86; MCIA 1:2, 375-378, inscriptions 228, 230; Gaube and Wirth, Cat. No. 418; Talas, 150; Tabbakh 2, Il, 368. ' Khan al-Ikinjt (“the Second Khan”) is the popular Aleppine pronounciation of the what would be in Modern Turkish orthography, zkincz. It was built around 1490 outside Bab Banqusa. Gaube and Wirth, 402, No. 555. Or “Triple Caravanserai,” Khan Ujkhan is the popular Aleppine pronounciation of the what would be in Modern Turkish orthography, U¢g Han. This cara-

vanserai was renovated by Khair Bak in 1515; its original date seems to be 1495-1498. Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 96, no. 60; MCIA 1:2, 373-375, 406; Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture: Form, Function and Meaning (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1994), 333, fig. 243; Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 478; Meinecke, Mamlukasche Archiektur, v. 2, 454-455, Cat. No. 47/24.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 39 Aleppo prefigures the Ottoman practice of sponsoring similar structures.

It seems that the Mamluk caravanserais conformed to the same standards of formal quality regardless of their urban location. In other words, the level of patronage determined the form of Mamluk caravanserais, whereas, as discussed in Chapter 3, in the Ottoman period

urban context and location determined the form chosen for a caravanseral, evincing an awareness of the historical fabric of the city. The style of the Mamluk caravanserais set the tone for subsequent commercial structures in Aleppo. In their basic configuration their eroundplans recall caravanserais anywhere in the Islamic world: twostory rectangular buildings centered around a courtyard with a single entrance, combining the functions of inn and warehouse.'” The local availability of stone and of skilled craftsmen determined the distinctive feature of Aleppo’s Mamluk carvanserais, the elaborate facades on the street, emphasizing the doorway framed by foundation inscriptions.

The fronts of the Khan al-Sabiin, the Khan Ujkhan and the Khan Khair Bak exhibit epigraphy and geometric ornament. ‘Those of the

Khan Ujkhan and the Khan Kha’ir Bak, which shared a patron, display a band of Mamluk naskh writing on the upper part of the wall, surmounting an arch that frames the doorway. ‘The area between

the arch and the writing band is elaborately carved with vegetal motifs. The entrance to the Khan Kha’ir Bak (Pl. 7) features a motif ubiquitous in the Mamluk architecture of Aleppo: horizontal rows of stone in alternating colors cover the entire fagade. ‘The relatively small door is set within a monumental arch, whose voussoirs are also striped. Breaking the monotony, a joggled stringcourse crosses the middle of the facade. Its center defines a symmetrical axis, and is aligned with the keystone of the arch below. This elaborate facade treatment can be found in all the major cities of the Mamluk realm; however, its ubiquitous use on prestige monuments, combined with the local stone creates an version of the Mamluk idiom typical of Aleppo. Michael Meinecke postulated the existence of an Aleppo school of stonecarving, and attributed the similarity of Mamltk architectural forms across the empire to the migration of artisans from

'Y On commercial architecture see EJ’, s.v. “Khan,” by Nikita Elisséeff; Eleanor Sims, “Trade and ‘Travel: Markets and Caravanserais,” In Architecture of the Islamic

World, ed. G. Michell (New York, 1978), 80-111; Hillenbrand, Chapter on caravanserais, in Islamic Architecture, 331-376; 548-567.

36 CHAPTER TWO this school.*? Whether we assume that such a tradition of craftsmanship endured unchanged beyond the Mamluk period, this format, or Mamluk signature, as it were, was reused and transformed in Ottoman structures of the same type in Aleppo. The epigraphic program of the Khan of Kha’ir Bak Wustrates the continuity of the urban visual language between the late Mamluk and the early Ottoman periods. Of the khan’s two inscriptions,” both accompanied by the patron’s blazons, one, dated 1514, appears

on the metal panes of the entrance door. The later inscription on the west wall of the courtyard, dated 1522, bears the name of the Ottoman Sultan Siileyman. Both inscriptions are in the same Mamluk naskh style. An Ottoman hand was not chosen for the second inscription.*” Rather, the inscription evinces stylistic continuity while indicating a change in the socio-political order semantically. The Ottoman presence was signaled through other visual means.

The First Ottoman Signs

On 25 Rajab 922/24 August 1516, the Ottoman Sultan Selim the Grim defeated the Mamluk Sultan Qansauh al-Ghuri at the battle of Mar) Dabiq near Aleppo. As Kha’ir Bak had aided this victory by shifting his allegiance from one sultan to the other, the city was occupied peacefully, and was spared looting and destruction.” This victory signaled the integration of the vast Mamluk realm into the Ottoman empire, with wide-ranging consequences for the new polity. ‘Through this victory, the Ottoman sultan supplanted the °° Michael Meinecke, “Mamluk Architecture. Regional Architectural Traditions: Evolution and Interrelations,” Damaszener Mitteilugen 2 (1985): 163-75, Plates 48-55.

*" MCIA 1:2, 404-405, inscriptions 273, 274; MCIA 2, Pl. CLXXa and b. ” A variation in the blazon of Khair Bak may or may not indicate a response to the Ottoman presence. Khair Bak’s blazon occurs three times in Aleppo: on the 1514 Caravanserai inscription, on the exterior of his mausoleum, and on the exterior of Jami‘ al-Sharaf. The blazon is the same in all instances; however, the 1514 blazon is surmounted by a crescent and a star. Assuming the crescent and the star were perceived as Ottoman symbols, could this be a later (post-Ottoman conquest) addition to the most visible inscription in the caravanserai, to proclaim the new allegience

of the patron? * Khair Bak was rewarded with an appointment as governor-general of the province of Misir. For an Aleppine account of these events, see the biography of Sultan Selim I in Ibn al-Hanbali 1:2, 664-668. For compilations of local sources on the battle of Marj Dabiq and Selim’s entry into Aleppo, Tabbakh 2, HI, 125-142, Ghazzi 2, III, 192-198.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 37 Abbasid caliph as the custodian of the ‘two Noble Sanctuaries of Mecca and Madina, an important trapping of Islamic sovereignty. In Cairo, the Mamluk capital, the Ottomans inherited a city Ibn Khaldun called “the mother of the world,” one of the oldest and most diverse Islamic cities, covered with monuments and shrines. Selim relocated relics of the Prophet and of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs from Cairo to Istanbul, forever enhancing the religious importance of the

House of Osman. ‘The concentration of Islamic memorials in the former Mamluk cities set them apart from other towns the Ottomans

had conquered, including Istanbul, the former Byzantine capital. Aleppo had been part of the dar al-tslam (the Islamic realm) since 637. The name of the city in Arabic, Halab, reflects the local tradition of its genesis in which the Prophet Abraham stopped at the site of the city and milked (halaba) his goat.** Boasting shrines to Abraham

and Khidr, relics of the Prophet Zakariyya and of the ahl al-bayt (family of the Prophet), Aleppo like Damascus, Jerusalem and Cairo

was the subject of a literature in the genre of fada’i, or virtues of cities celebrating its Islamic sites and the great deeds of its notable inhabitants.*? Aleppo’s Islamic “credentials,” therefore, were wellestablished, as were its long-standing Muslim institutions. For Istanbul

and the cities of Eastern Europe, Ottomanization entailed a process of Islamization in the sense of the introduction of Islamic signs in predominantly Christian landscapes. In the case of the former Mamluk realm, Ottomanization entailed the incorporation of a pre-existing Islamic social order into new dynastic structures of administration, control and representation. The immediate takeover or destruction of monuments or religious shrines usually follows the conquest of a city. Upon entering Constantinople, Mehmed II and his retinue collectively prayed in the city’s most prominent church, the Hagia Sophia, indicating publicly and dramatically its transformation into a mosque. Later architectural ** The earliest text recording the founding of Aleppo by Abraham is, Yaqit, ibn ‘Abdallah al-Hamawi, Muam al-Buldain, \st ed., ed. Muhammad Amin al-Khanji al-Kutibi, 10 vols. (Cairo: Matba‘at al-Sa‘ada, 1906-1907). * The nineteenth-century poem of Shaykh Wafa’ lists the shrines of Aleppo according to their location: Shaykh Wafa’, Awlya@ Halab. Julia Gonnella, Lslamische Heiligenverehrung im urbanen Kontext am Betspiel von Aleppo (Synen) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz,

1995), lists the shrines of the city. The genre of biographical dictionaries and topographical histories focusing on Aleppo is discussed in Chapter 6. On the Ottoman perception of the religious importance of Mamluk cities, particularly Istanbul, see Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 71.

38 CHAPTER TWO modifications, some visible from the exterior (the removal of the belltower and cross at the summit of the dome, the addition of minarets),

and some marking the Muslim usage of the interior (the addition of a mihrab and minbar indicating the direction of Mecca) made the monument’s transformation permanent.”° In a predominantly sunni Muslim city, a sunni Muslim conqueror’s act of prayer at the Great Mosque could not have the same dramatic charge of transformation. Placing the stamp of Ottoman presence in such a space required other

means. In many instances Ottoman practice consisted in placing a visually recognizable stamp on the most topographically salient site of a conquered city. For example, Cairo’s earliest Ottoman mosque, that of Siileyman Pasha, was built on the citadel in 1528, featuring a prominent Rumi-style minaret.’’ While the mosque was a modest endowment, its location nonetheless ensured its visibility. In Damascus,

conquered at the same time as Aleppo from the Mamluk state, the Ottoman architectural imprint was immediate: Selim I renovated the tomb of the mystic Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-‘Arabi in 923-924/1517-1518

and constructed an institutional complex near it.** The buildings were in a style recognizable as Ottoman from the exterior, with pencil-shaped minarets and low hemispherical domes, imprinting a visually novel sign onto the cityscape. The complex did not replace any existing mosques in Damascus, as the shrine to Ibn al-‘Arabi was located

in the suburb of Salihiyya on the slope of Mount Qasyin. Rather, this act of patronage reinforced the Islamic legitimacy of the new ** Giilru Necipoglu, “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium,” in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present, ed. Robert Mark and Ahmet GCakmak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 195-225.

77 Ulkii U. Bates, “Facades in Ottoman Cairo,” in Bierman et al., eds., Ottoman City, 129-172; and Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo, 244-250. For a discussion of early Ottoman monuments in Cairo and their reuse of Mamluk forms, see Irene A. Bierman, “Architecture: Traditional Forms,” in John L. Esposito, ed., Zhe Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, Vol. 1 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995): 118-128. In the seventeenth century, the placement of an Ottoman-style mosque on the most topographically salient site of a conquered city remained in force, as in Bierman, “Ottomanization of Crete.” *8 Ibn Tuliin (d. 1546), in Henri Laoust, Les gouverneurs de Damas sous les Mamlouks et les premiers Ottomans (658-1156/ 1260-1744): Traduction des annales d’Ibn Tuliun et d’Ibn Gum‘a (Damascus: Institut Frangais de Damas, 1952), 149. Evliya Gelebi, Seyahatiname,

vol. 9, 547-548. Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi, Osmanl Mimdrisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Deon (886-9267 1481-1520) (Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi, 1983), 447-448. Karl Wulzinger and Carl Watzinger, Damaskus, die islamische Stadt (Berlin and Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1924). 127. Ibn al-Hanbalf 1:2, 667; Muhammad Kurd ‘AI, Ahitat al-Sham (Damascus: Matba‘at al-taraqqi, 1925-1928), vol. 6, 142; Sauvaget, Monuments historiques de Damas,

105, No. 109; Al-Rihant and Ouéchek, “Deux takiyyas de Damas.”

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 39 ruler without demolishing or reshaping any of the city’s established sacred sites. However, the new complex competed with previous Damascene mosques, especially the Umayyad Great Mosque: possibly the new complex was conceived as an alternative to the Great Mosque,

as reflected in the ceremonials enacted in it such as distribution of food and alms by the Sultan, and visits by the Ottoman governors on certain Fridays.” Thus in Damascus within two years of conquest the Ottomans established an alternative urban nucleus that competed with previous social and religious foci without demolishing them.

There were no such dramatic interventions in Aleppo in the wake of conquest. Contrary to expectation, the imposition of visually

distinctive Ottoman mosque complexes in the city was delayed significantly.*” The first among them, the complex of Husrev Pasha,

was completed in 1546, about thirty years after the battle of Marj Dabiq. ‘The case of Aleppo’s citadel is particularly distinctive, as one

would have expected the Ottomanization of Aleppo to open with the erection of a monument on it. Dominating the city and visible from all points, the citadel had been inhabited since the city’s earliest history. It was shaped most thoroughly by the Ayyubid ruler al-Mahk al-Zahir Ghazi (r. 1193-1215), a son of Saladin.*! The last Mamluk

sultan Qansauh al-Ghurl remodeled the main gate, making it the instantly recognizable visual sign it remains in Syria today, as the icon of Aleppo.*’ Unlike Cairo, or Athens, where a Rumi-style minaret

on the citadel signaled the Ottoman presence, in Aleppo’s fort, no existing monuments were removed or modified, and the Ayyubidperiod minaret of the Great Mosque of the Citadel remained the most visible indicator of Islamic rule, until today. Nevertheless, the citadel was Ottomanized in less visually prominent ways. It was taken over /egally, turned into the personal domain (mul) of the sultan. As such, it became extra-territorial to the city and beyond the authority of the provincial governor. It housed the military garrison and its commander, the dizdar,*’ as well as the mint, which

* Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 74. °° David, “Domaines,” 179. *! See Tabbaa, “Circles of Power,” 181, especially his discussion of the significance of the minaret of the Great Mosque of the Citadel and its visibility in the Ayyubid

Pe The gate of the citadel appears on the paper currency of the Syrian Arab Republic, and on the logo of the University of Aleppo. °° Damascus, Markaz al-Wathaiq al-Wataniyya (National Archives): Awamir

40 CHAPTER TWO produced coins bearing the name of the reigning sultan and of the city." The citadel was stamped with the first Ottoman architectonic sign in Aleppo: a tower bearing a Sultanic inscription. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence indicate that Sileyman built a tower to the west of the portal, and possibly carried out more extensive renovations as well (Pl. 8).°° On this tower, an Arabic inscription dated Muharram 928/December 1521, prominent in size, was designed to be noticed— if not read—tfrom below. In its semantic content, the description is

a standard “renovation text.” However, the titles of the Ottoman ruler are different from those of a Mamluk ruler as encountered in public writing. A careful reader in 1522 would realize that not only was there a new sovereign, but there was a new type of dynastic rule as well. In close proximity to monumental inscriptions by previous rulers, including, most recently, the defeated Qansauh al-Ghuri, Sileyman’s also espoused a new visual style: Ottoman naskh rather than the Mamluk calligraphic style. Thus both the semantic content and the visual style of the inscription indicated a new social order.” This sign was added alongside other signs by previous rulers on the

exterior of the citadel.’ This sign was not designed to overpower the previous ones. Instead, in its content and in its form, it denoted with great economy, to the cultured eye, the change in rule. In addition, the deliberate placement of the inscription on the citadel’s exteSultaniyya (Imperial Decrees) for Aleppo (henceforth AS Aleppo), vol. 1, p. 106, document 222, dated 1690. The document is in Ottoman. (NB: No Awamir Sultantyya are available for Aleppo in the sixteenth century). * Anton C. Schaendlinger, Osmanische Numismatik: von den Anftingen des Osmanischen

Reiches bis zu seiner Auflosung 1922 (Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1973). For coins minted when the Sultan was in residence in Aleppo: Tabbakh 2, III, 146

(Sileyman I), 206 (Murad IV). See also Inalcik and Quataert, 56-57. * Moritz Sobernheim, “Die arabischen Inschriften von Aleppo,” Der Islam 15:2/4 (1926), 166-7, inscription 6; MCIA 1:1, 110, inscription 56; MCIA 2, Pl. XXXII c, Pl. XXIVc (Groundplan). Herzfeld observed that this tower was part of Stileymdan’s

partial reparation of the towers rebuilt by Qansauh al-Ghwtri and interpreted the inscription to mean that the renovation outfitted the ramparts against artillery. No architectural discussions of Aleppo other than Herzfeld’s take account of this intervention. For Siileyman’s patronage in the provinces, see André Raymond, “Le sultan Suleyman et VPactivité architecturale dans les provinces arabes de l’empire,” in Veinstein, ed., Solzman le Magnifique, 371-384.

* "These distinctions from Mamlik practice are significant even though the language of Stileyman’s inscription is Arabic rather than Ottoman. A model for the analysis of Islamic public writing in terms of semantic content and visual style as parallel orders of representation is provided by Irene A. Bierman, Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

*’ For a diagram of the inscriptions at the citadel and their dates, see Gaube & Wirth, 169, fig. 40.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 4] rior wall maximized its visibility to the urban dwellers. ‘This section of the wall overlooked one of the largest open areas in the city that was also one of the busiest: a temporary marketplace that served as

the Mamluk horse bazaar and later as the stq al-Jum‘a or Friday market. This inscription remained the only official Ottoman stamp on the citadel until the nineteenth century.** This stamp on Aleppo’s

citadel linked it to other provincial Ottoman cities in the Levant such as Damascus and Tripoli, whose citadels were similarly renovated by Siileyman. The second earliest Ottoman architectural intervention in Aleppo, also by Sultan Sitileyman, took the form of a relatively modest structure, a public fountain, which maximized its effect through a strategic location. The Qastal al-Sultan occupied an urban threshold just outside Bab al-Faraj, the city’s northwestern gate.” Originally built of stone, surmounted by a domed portico and bearing an undated inscription that listed the titles of Stileyman, the fountain probably

dated to the mid-1530’s, around the time when the Sultan sponsored the construction of similar fountains in provincial centers such as Jerusalem.*” It was part of a charitable endowment (wagqf) and its upkeep was ensured by the income of an orchard and several shops nearby.*' It was demolished to make way for the clocktower erected by Sultan ‘Abdiil-Hamid II in 1316/1898-99.” ** An apparently minor restoration of the Mosque of Abraham in the citadel was carried out by the hazinedar Mustafa: Sobernheim, “Arabischen Inschriften,” 206, inscription 42. In 1834 Ibrahim Pasha, son of Kavala Mehmed ‘Ali (Muhammad ‘AIT of Egypt), who occupied Aleppo between 1831 and 1837 built barracks well within the citadel. Invisible to the pedestrian on the street below, the barracks bear an official inscription in the Ottoman language, and in an Ottoman epigraphic style. * In her study of seventeenth-century Crete Bierman identified “urban thresholds” as a privileged location for Ottoman monuments, “Urban Transformations,” 301-309. * The inscription is in Arabic. MCIA 1:1, 43, inscription no. 5. The calligraphic style was described as Kufic (top line), and as naskhi (bottom line). ‘The description of the now-destroyed fountain 1s derived from M. van Berchem’s field notes. The fountain was restored in 1226/1811 according to an additional inscription. Sauvaget, Alep, 233, n. 882. Evliya Gelebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 366-7, described the fountain and quotes the inscription, whose form he identified as “celi.” Ghazzi 2, I, 163 quoted the undated foundation inscription and suggests a building date of 940/1533-34, the year of Stileyman’s first visit to Aleppo, However, elsewhere, Ghazzi 2, II, 205,

dated the fountain to 956/1549, the year of Stileyman’s second visit to Aleppo. Raymond, “Activité architecturale,” 383, n. 9 suggested 1536-37, the dates when Suleyman built similar fountains in Jerusalem. For a list of Stileyman’s sojourns in Aleppo, see ibid., 371. *' For a summary of the fountain’s waqfiyya, see Ghazzi 2, II, 164. *” The demolition of the fountain and the erection of the clocktower were part of ‘Abdiil-Hamid I’s urban renewal efforts in provincial cities, Ghazzi 2, II, 164.

42 CHAPTER TWO Since the fountain has not survived, and only verbal descriptions are available, it is difficult to assess its style and impact. This fountain figures in a scholarly debate on imperial patronage that reveals

the main assumptions about Ottoman architectural production in provincial centers. André Raymond asserted that Sitileyman’s fountains in Jerusalem and Aleppo were built in a common regional style, and he compared the surviving examples to Mamluk-period fountains in Aleppo.** Like Michael Meinecke, Raymond postulated the existence of local architects and craftsmen in the employ of the sultan who “very naturally” employed the forms practiced in the Mamluk period. In his view, this local style was distinct from and coexisted with the imperial style of contemporary commissions such as the Khusruwiyya in Aleppo and the Sulaymaniyya Complex im Damascus

(1555). From a quantitative point of view, according to Raymond, monuments in “local, traditional” styles predominated among Siileyman’s commissions in the former Mamluk provinces.” The evidence indeed suggests that in cities with strong local building traditions, as in former Mamluk cities, but also Anatolian towns such as Diyarbakir

and Van, more than one stylistic choice existed and was practiced simultaneously by Ottoman patrons. ‘The next three chapters analyze such stylistic choices in Aleppo and their urban and architectural contexts. The discussion of the Fountain of Sitileyman brings to the fore the assumption in the literature that in contexts such as The gate of Bab al-Faraj was apparently also demolished. A photograph of Bab alFara] from before 1899 was published as an unpaginated plate Shaykh Wafa’, Awhya@ FHalab.

* Raymond, “Activité architecturale,” 384, n. 15. In his judgment that the Qastal al-Sultan resembled Mamluk-period fountains, Raymond is at odds with van Berchem,

who described the fountain he studied before its demolition as being in a “style Soliman,” cited in MCIA 1:1, 43, as well as Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, “On Suleiman’s Sabils in Jerusalem,” In The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor

of Bernard Lewis, ed. C. E. Bosworth et al., (Princeton, N. J.: Darwin, 1989): 589-607. For a discussion of Stileyman’s building activity in Jerusalem, see Michael Meinecke,

“Die Erneuerung von al-Quds/Jerusalem durch den Osmanensultan Sulaiman QOanuni,” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine 3 (1988): 257-283, 338-360.

“ "The Khusruwiyya is discussed in Chapter 3; for the Complex of Sultan Siileyman

in Damascus, also known as the Takiyya Sulaymaniyya, attributed to Sinan, see Godfrey Goodwin, “The Tekke of Siileyman I, Damascus,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly CX (1978): 127-129; Al-Rihani and Ouéchek, “Deux takiyyas de Damas;” Aptullah Kuran, “Sam Sileymaniye Kiilliyesi,” in Zeki Sonmez, ed., Mimar Sinan donem: Tiirk mimarlgi ve sanat: (Istanbul: Tiirkiye Is Bankas: Yayinlan, 1988): 169-172;

Katescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus.” * Raymond, “Activité architecturale,” 377. Raymond uses the category “Arab provinces,” while I use “former Mamluk provinces” instead.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 43 the Levant, with a history of local architectural production, there continued to exist a dichotomy of visual languages, central-Ottoman and local, that these visual languages remained distinct and autonomous,

and that this dichotomy reveals deeper structures of identification. By contrast, the next chapters also show that in the provinces, the presence of features from various traditions in almost every single Ottoman monuments question the assumption of distinct and separate artistic traditions. Beyond the issue of whether Sileymdn’s fountains quoted Rumi or Mamluk architectural forms, it is significant that similar types of architectural interventions took place simultaneously in provincial cities. Stileyman’s construction of a monumental public fountain and the renovation of the citadel in Aleppo were part of a broader project of marking provincial cities with the construction of public structures with similar functions and somewhat similar forms. In this manner Siileyman established the Ottoman presence in the former Mamluk cities with a degree of standardization. He created signs, how-

ever modest, to bind those cities to each other, and to Ottoman rule. In addition to such standardized and understated interventions, in the early sixteenth century, Siileyman also undertook the Ottomanization of the most important Islamic shrines of the former Mamluk empire, through the restorations of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Two Noble Sanctuaries.*© The accumulation of these signs ultimately created a distinctive Ottoman cityscape that was characterized

by the layering of architectural strata and an openness to formal , diversity.

The Character of Architectural Patronage

Apart from the two interventions by Sideyman discussed above, mem-

bers of the Ottoman dynasty undertook no major building projects in Aleppo until the very end of the nineteenth century.*’ By contrast, *© Beatrice St. Laurent and Andras Riedlmayer, “Restorations of Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock and their Political Significance, 1537-1928,” Mugarnas 10 (1993): 76-84.

* Until Abdiil-Hamid II’s extensive urban projects in the late nineteenth century, only a few minor projects were patronized by sultans in Aleppo. An undated inscription in Arabic on the fourth tower south of Bab Antakiyya commemorates the partial renovation of the ramparts by Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617): MCIA 1:1, 58,

44 CHAPTER TWO sultans and their relatives endowed major complexes in other former Mamluk cities. In Damascus, the sixteenth century saw the construction

of two sultanic complexes, both with a religious significance: the Complex of Selim I centered on the tomb of Ibn al-‘Arabi, and the Takiyya Sulaymaniyya, which supported the annual pilgrimage (haj) to the Two Noble Sanctuaries, for which Damascus was an important station.*® Jerusalem, which like Damascus figured prominently

in the Ottoman religious consciousness, received the patronage of members of the royal household such as Hiirrem Sultan, Siileyman’s consort.*” Instead, it was the patronage of Ottoman officials which transformed the urban landscape of Aleppo in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In this study I distinguish, in a general sense, between two types

of patronage: that of Ottoman officials based at the imperial capital, and that of the local notability. The Ottoman system of rotation ensured that the officials who administered the empire—governors,

military men, judges and tax collectors—would move to a different

district every few years, keeping them dependent on the central authority by preventing them from fostering regional ties and loyalties.”°

inscription no. 13. A renovation inscription of Mahmiid I (r. 1730-1754) appears on the eastern ramparts: MCIA 1:1, 70, inscription no. 24. In 1291/1874, Abdiil ‘Aziz

donated a kiswa to the cenotaph of Zakariyya in the Great Mosque of Aleppo: Ghazzi 2, Ul, 187. * The religious significance of Damascus held an important place in the Ottoman consciousness, see Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 71. On the ‘Takiyya Sulaymaniyya, see above. For Damascus and the pilgrimage, see: Abdul-Karim Rafeq, “New Light on the Transportation of the Damascene Pilgrimage during the Ottoman Period,” in Robert Olson, ed., Lslamic and Middle Eastern Societies: A Festchnft in honor of Professor Wadte Fwaideh (Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books, 1987); idem, “Le Mahmal

en route pour la Mecque,” in Anne-Marie Bianquis, ed., Damas, miroir brisé dun Onent arabe (Paris: Autrement, 1993); Colette Establet and Jean-Paul Pascual, Familles et fortunes a Damas: 450 foyers damascains en 1700 (Damas: Institut Frangais de Damas,

1994), Chpt. 1. “ Leslie Peirce, “Gender and Sexual Propriety in Ottoman Royal Women’s Patronage,” in D. Fairchild Ruggles, ed., Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies

(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000): 53-68; Amy Singer, “The Miilknames of Hurrem Sutlan’s Waqf in Jerusalem,” Mugarnas 14 (1997): 96-102. © On the Ottoman system of provincial administration, see Halil Inalcik, “State, Land, and Peasant,” in Inalcik and Donald Quataert, eds., An Economic and Social Ehstory of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), vol. 1, 103-178; for the seventeenth century, see Chapter 2 of Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994). Metin Kunt analyzed the social category and career paths of Ottoman officials,

in “Ethnic Regional (Cis) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment,” J/MES 5 (1974), and idem, Sultan’s Servants.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 45 While it was afforded a certain degree of political and administrative autonomy, the province of Haleb with Aleppo as is capital was administered by governors (beglerbegis or valis) appointed directly by

Istanbul.’ Ottoman administrative policy ensured that the empire’s officials were not drawn from the established Muslim-born urban notability, but rather from the pool of trainees of the Palace school that

were of slave origin and therefore could not command loyalties of clan and kin. The local sources evince a sense of distinction between the members of the local Sunni notability, even when they were enmeshed in Ottoman bureaucratic and religious structures, and the Ottoman official class. Biographical dictionaries of great men of Aleppo

such as that of Ibn al-Hanbali record the deeds of both social categories, but dwell on the family interconnections of the local notables.”

Thus in Ottoman Aleppo, the nature of patronage changed. In the Mamluk period governors, Amirs as well as well as wealthy local merchants had endowed the most prominent monuments and the most significant infrastructural projects. For example, epigraphic evi-

dence indicates that a wealthy merchant, Burd Bak, financed the entire refurbishment of the water system of the suburban northwestern nieghborhoods at the end of the fifteenth century.°’ Patronage of such scope by merchants or other local luminaries was rare in the Ottoman

period until the eighteenth century. The major patrons were now Ottoman officials, particularly beglerbegis, or governors-general. For the two centuries under study, economic, social and ideological

factors made the patronage of the ruling élite more significant than patronage by wealthy but less powerful members of the local urban élite. Both types of patronage occurred simultaneously. Constructions by Aleppines who were not members of the ruling élite from Istanbul *' Raymond, Great Arab Cities, 3. The governors of the viléyet-i Haleb held the rank of vizier of two feathers in the early Ottoman period. Their title was pasa. Rifa’at A. Abou-El-Haj has discussed the legitimation of Ottoman rule through provincial regulation manuals, “Aspects of the Legitimation of Ottoman Rule as Reflected in the Preambles of Two Early Liva Kanunnameler,’ Turcica 21-23 (1991), 371-383. * This type of literature is discussed in Chapter 6. On the local Sunni notability,

see André Raymond, “Groupes sociaux et géographie urbaine a Alep au XVIII‘ siécle,” in Thomas Philipp, ed., The Synan Land in the Exghteenth and Nineteenth Century: The Common and the Specific in the Fistorical Expenence (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992):

147-163; Abdul Karim Rafeg, “The Syrian ‘Ulama, Ottoman Law and Islamic Shari ‘a,” Turcica 26 (1994): 9-32; and Margaret L. Meriwether, The Ain Who Count: family and Society in Ottoman Aleppo (Austin: University of ‘Texas Press, 1999).

Sauvaget, Alep, 181-182.

46 CHAPTER TWO indicates that they had enough wealth to acquire milk (personal prop-

erty), which they could then turn into wagf property.’ Epigraphic and archaeological evidence records many such constructions after 1517.° Local notables endowed structures that constituted the focal points of neighborhoods and provided social services. In their style they often conformed to the visual repertory of the late Mamluk period.°° In the first two centuries of Ottoman rule in Aleppo, official

Ottoman patronage played a more decisive role than the patronage of the local urban elite. It was the representative of official Ottoman power, the beglerbegi, who built major complexes that transformed the cityscape and altered the focus of public life. The situation was reversed only in the eighteenth century, when the rising power of local notables was reflected in the construction of complexes that dominated the city, just as the patronage of Ottoman officials waned. Earliest Ottoman Endowments

In the cities of the empire, most dramatically in Istanbul, giant killiyes or institutional complexes built by sultans, occupy the summits

of the urban hills.’ The topography of Aleppo does not have an equally dramatic series of hills on which the institutional complexes ** In Islamic society there are three types of land ownership: milk or outright possession of land, zgf@‘ or the revocable right to revenue from land that belongs to the state, and wagf or land that is tied in perpetuity to a charitable endowment. Only milk can be turned into wagf. »> Such constructions by the local urban elite are documented through material remains, endowment deeds, and epigraphy. For example, see VGM, Wagfiyya of the late Muhr al-Din Shalabi, Shams al-Din Muhammad and Kamarshah Khattn, Aleppo, 1532, defter 589, p. 44. For epigraphic evidence see MCIA 1:2: Qaragol near Bab al-Hadid, built in 1544 by Asad b. Husayn al-Amiri (?), inscription 282, p. 411. Maktab al-Hamawi, built in 1560-1 by al-hajj Mustafa b. Dada al-Qaramani: MCIA 1:2, 410, incription 280; Ghazzi 2, I, 303-304; Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 109, no. 98. The local sharif al-sayyid Ibrahim b. al-sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Hashimi endowed a mosque known as Jami‘ Bish Qubba (Bes Kiibbe in Ottoman, “Mosque of the Five Domes”) in the Quarter Jubb Asad Allah in 1590: Ghazzi 2, U, 177; Sauvaget, Alep, 234. °»° For example, the Mosque of al-Midant (also vocalized Maydani) is strikingly

similar to late Mamlak mosques. It was endowed by a local sharif, Husayn b. Muhammad al-Halabi, known as Ibn al-Midani, ca. 1527, in the northern suburb of al-Almaji. See David, “Domaines,” 179; Sauvaget, Alep, 234; Ghazzi 2, Il, 328-329; Gaube & Wirth, Cat. No. 486. °’ Speros Vryonis, “Byzantine Constantinople and Ottoman Istanbul: Evolution in a Millenial Imperial Iconography,” In Bierman et al., eds., Ottoman City, 13-52.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 47 could be placed. Aleppo’s major topographical feature is the citadel, on which the Ottomans chose not to build kiilliyes. They reshaped the skyline of the city in other ways. Official patronage in Aleppo— that is, patronage by members of the Ottoman ruling body who did not have kinship ties to the city—-extended to various types of buildings in throughout the city. When viewed diachronically, patterns

emerge as to the type of structures built and their location, which this and the following chapters explore. A few endowments do not fit the pattern, and include single buildings with a specific function which alter their surroundings in small ways, such as the Mausoleum of Guhar Malikshah of 1552.°° Guhar Malikshah, a granddaughter of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-— 1512), was the mother of Diikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, the patron of the ‘Adiliyya complex (discussed in Chapter 3). Having died in Aleppo on 9 Rabi‘ II 959/74 April 1552, upon her return from the

hay,’ she was buried there (Pl. 9). The mausoleum’s endowment provided a daily stipend of one dirham to no less than 30 Koran reciters.°” In plan, the mausoleum is a simple domed square.®' In *® Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 108, No. 91; Sauvaget, Alep 2, Pl. XXXLX; MCIA 1:2, 409, No. 279; MCIA 2, Pl. CLXXI, c (photograph of the inscription); Gaube and Wirth, No. 152; Ghazzi 2, II, 92-93. ” The circumstances of her death are indicated in the mausoleum inscription which states that she was the daughter of ‘A’isha, a daughter of Sultan Bayezid II, MCIA 1:2, 409. Her biography in Ibn al-Hanbali 2:1, 69, indicates that she was Mehmed Pasha’s mother and the granddaughter of Bayezid. However, Mehmed Sureyya states that Mehmed Pasha Dikakinzade’s wife rather than mother was a daughter of Bayezid, named Jevher-i Multk: Stireyya, Szzll-1 ‘Osmén?, v. 4, 114. The wife is not the same person as the woman buried in Aleppo, despite the similarity of their names, which are orthographed differently. The biography of Jevher-i Mulik in the Szzll-2 “Osman? states that she was the wife of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, died in 957/1550 and was buried in the mekteb of Zal Pasha in Eyiip, Istanbul. See also the genealogy of the Ottoman dynasty published by Siireyya, Swzll-2 ‘Osmani,

vol. 1, 9. Dikakinzade Ahmed Pasha, father of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, was married to ‘A’isha, the daughter of Bayezid: Peirce, Imperial Harem, 304, n. 59. Perhaps this ‘A’isha and Gihar Malikshah (this might not be her given name) were one and the same. The waqfiyya of the ‘Adiltyya mosque preserved in Ankara does not name Mehmed Pasha’s spouse or mother, though the handwritten catalog gives the spouse’s name as Jevher Hatin, VGM, Wagfiyya of Dikakinzade Mehmed

Pasha, Aleppo, 963/1555, defter 607, p. 1 (Henceforth VGM, Wagfiyya of Diikakinzade Mehmed Pasha). *° There is no known wagqfiyya for this mausoleum. Some information about the endowment appears in Ibn al-Hanbali, 2:1, 69. In the early 20th century the tomb was maintained out of the usufruct of the awqaf of the ‘Adiliyya, the foundation of Guhar Malikshah’s son (see Chapter 3) Ghazzi 2, II, 92-93; however the waqfiyya of the ‘Adiliyya does not mention it.

*' For a groundplan, see the Gaube and Wirth city plan.

48 CHAPTER TWO elevation, it is a cube topped by a high drum and a hemispherical dome, similar to late Mamluk tombs such as that of Kha’ir Bak, discussed above.®” However the tomb’s sober exterior, lacking the Mamluk

emphasis on external elaboration, recalls central Ottoman style. Located at the corner of two roads, four of the tomb’s large windows

open on the street, allowing the voices of the thirty Koran readers to be heard by passers-by throughout the day. A foundation inscription in Arabic surmounts the entrance on the northern wall, naming the deceased, her grandfather Sultan Bayezid, and her son, the gov-

ernor of Aleppo at the time of construction. The format of the inscription, four lines in a simple frame above the entrance, resembles

late Mamluk examples as in the Khan al-Qassabiyya; however, the form of the writing is an Ottoman naskh.® Thus the structure was a simplified version of a Mamlauk mausoleum, with an Istanbul-inflected

sobriety, and with an inscription Ottoman in form and content. Despite these Rumi-style details, the building did not stand out among

the surrounding urban fabric. However, the siting of the tomb deviated from established patterns, as late Mamluk freestanding tombs that were not part of larger complexes were often located in the Maqamat quarter to the south of Aleppo, including the tomb of Kha’ir Bak discussed above.” The Ottoman turba resembled the Mamluk tombs, but its location did not conform to Mamluk precedent. Rather, it foreshadowed the sixteenth-century Ottoman predilection for the central area of the intramural city, to the West of the citadel. In addition to the patronage of members of the Ottoman élite, the patronage of Aleppine notables also indicates that the Mamluk ®2 Another comparable example is the Mausoleum of ‘Uthman b. Ghulbak (1476), see: MCIA 1:2, 384-385, No. 239; MCIA 2, Plate CLXIV, b: Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 93, No. 50; Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate XX XIX; Gaube and Wirth list it collectively with other Mamliik tombs, No. 659; Meinecke, Mamlukasche Architektur, vol. 1, 183, fig. 133. *’ For the Khan al-Qassabiyya, see MCIA 1:2, op. cit., photograph MCIA 2, PI.

CLXXI, c. On the plate published in Sauvaget, op. cit., the Mausolum of Gihar is pictured along with a series of Mamluk monuments, which reinforces the strong visual resemblance among them. For its inscription: MCIA 1:2, 403-404, Inscription

, No. 271, dated 916/1510; photograph MCIA 2, Pl. CLXXI, a. Gtthar Malikshah’s inscription does not resemble the usual format of inscriptions on late Mamlaik mausolea, as in that of Kh@ir Bak (continuous horizontal inscription along the fagade), probably because Mamluk inscriptions were part of a larger ornamentation program. "Tombs located within institutional complexes could be found anywhere in the city. The Mausoleum of Gihar Malikshah was almost certainly a freestanding tomb, without any charitable or income-producing elements attached.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 49 visual idiom for public buildings held currency in the first half of the sixteenth century. A case in point is the Jami‘ al-Tawashi, “the Mosque of the Eunuch,” located along the axis connecting the citadel to Magamat, an area of the city strewn with Mamluk monuments that received little official Ottoman patronage. Built by the eunuch Safi

al-Din Jawhar b. ‘Abd Allah in the middle of the 14th century, the mosque was substantially renovated in 1537 by an Aleppine merchant, Sa‘d Allah b. al-Hajyj ‘Ali b. al-Fakhri ‘Uthman al-Malti (d. 1539), who augmented the mosque’s endowment as well (Pl. 10).

In form, it is reminiscent of such Mamlik mosques as Jami‘ alUtrush. A hypostyle prayer hall opens onto a courtyard centered around a fountain and surrounded by arcades. Sa‘d Allah al-Malti’s mausoleum is located near the prayer area. While the building 1s oriented towards Mecca, the facade swerves so that its entire length lines the street, echoing Mamluk architecture’s concern with the shaping of street fronts.°’ The extensively decorated facade features vertical bays that contain windows flanked by elegant braided colonnettes.

The capitals in the shape of acanthus leaves blowing in the wind recall the Early Christian capitals at the Madrasa Hallawiyya near

the Great Mosque, a former cathedral, and the shrine of Saint Simeon Stylites near Aleppo. ‘The fagade’s decoration showcases the elaborate portal bearing a renovation inscription in a Mamluk naskh

style that names the patron but not the sovereign. The fifteenthcentury minaret, short and octagonal, is clearly visible from the street. The visual vocabulary employed in this renovation remains faithful to Mamluk precedents. ‘This was not limited to renovations, several new constructions by local patrons also followed Mamluk forms. While these projects provide evidence for the types of visual lan-

guage current at the time, the urban development of Aleppo was shaped to a greater extent through the largescale monumental complexes endowed by Ottoman officials. * The original building is mentioned in the medieval histories of Aleppo. On the renovation, and biographies of the restorer, see Ibn al-Hanbali, 1:1, 660-662; Ghazzi 2, II, 293-294; Tabbakh 2, VI, 131-134. For a study of eunuchs in the Mamluk state, see Shaun Marmon, Eunuchs and Sacred Boundanes in Islamic Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). *”° For the Jami‘ al-Tawashi, see: Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 99; Meinecke, Mamlukische

Architektur, vol. 1, 208, Plate 128d, vol. 2, 253, Cat. No. 22/76; Gaube & Wirth, Cat. No. 365; MCIA 1:2, p 349, inscription 198; MCIA 2, Pl CL a &b; Gonnella, Islamische Heiligenverehrung, 233, Cat. No 146.

*” Al-Harithy, “Concept of Space,” esp. 87-90, discusses Mamliik facades in Cairo.

50 CHAPTER TWO The Urban Development of the Sixteenth Century

The first thirty years of Ottoman rule in Aleppo saw no radical transformation in the city’s urbanism. While structures such as the Tower and Fountain of Siileyman dramatized the Ottoman rule and linked Aleppo to other provincial centers, this period was characterized by the continuity of late Mamluk architectural forms, of patterns of monument placement, and of the main civic functions of the city: the seat of administration, courts, and central bazaar remained the same. Over the sixteenth century, Aleppo like many former Mamluk cities experienced a period of tremendous urban growth expanding beyond

the ramparts to form suburbs, particularly along the northeastern edge of the walled city, near the access points of the caravans coming from the desert routes (Fig. 2).°° Critical to this urban growth was the series of large scale institutional complexes, the “great waqfs,” commius-

sioned by high-ranking officials in the commercial center of Aleppo.” Over the second half of the sixteenth century, governors tied up land through wagf in Aleppo and beyond. Through this legal instrument,

and by means of a series of discrete acts that amount to a larger urban development, they altered the fabric and the use of the city center. They constructed multi-purpose building complexes in the densely occupied urban core where real estate was at a premium: the Khusruwiyya Complex (1546), the ‘Adiliyya (1555), the complex around the Khan al-Gumruk (1574), the Bahramiyya (1583), as well as the two smaller waqfs of Maytab Zade Ahmed Pasha and Nishanji

8 Sauvaget, Alep, Chpt. 10. This urbanization extended to the entire eastern edge , of the city, where many of the industries related to the caravan trade were located. Sauvaget has used the term “antenna” to describe the northwestern suburbs, particularly Banqisa, which on a map resemble a long antenna stretching from the city into the countryside. A similar development took place in Ottoman Damascus: the long and narrow suburb of Mid&an, centered around a long thoroughfare, experienced exceptional growth in the Ottoman period. In the case of both cities, these suburbs were heavily involved in providing services related to the caravan trade: animals, caravan equipment, porters, etc. For a discussion of the development of Banqisa see Sauvaget, Alep, 175-6 and Gaube and Wirth; for a discussion of the extramural northeastern quarters see Anette Gangler, Lin traditionelles Wohnviertel im Nordosten der Altstadt von Aleppo in Nordsyrien (Tubingen: Wasmuth, 1993). For a recent

study of Midan in Damascus see Marino, Faubourg du Midan. *® Sauvaget coined the expression “grands waqfs,” later used by Raymond in his important article, “Les grands waqfs et l’organisation de l’espace urbain a Alep et au Caire a l’époque ottomane (XVI°-XVII° siécles),” Bulletzn d’Etudes Onentales 31 (1979): 113-132.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT Oo | Mehmed Pasha. ‘The importance of these complexes lies not only in the fact that they thoroughly altered the functions of the city and had

a deliberate impact on urban form, but also in the fact that they shouldered the ideological burden of making visible the official Otto-

man presence in Aleppo. They impacted the urban development of the city as well as its image. Islamic dynasties have always built charitable endowments with multi-functional components. ‘The former Mamluk provinces in particular comprised many such endowments that provided needed communal services as well as symbolized the might of their patrons.” In

its Ottoman version, a killiye usually refers to the charitable and educational dependencies of a great mosque.’’ Ottoman patrons often ageressively used the construction of institutional complexes as a tool of urban development, or senlendirme. Particularly in the case of depop-

ulated cities, as in the case of Istanbul after the conquest by Sultan

Mehmed in 1453, this tool was deployed as a catalyst of urban srowth.” Unlike fifteenth-century Istanbul, sixteenth-century Aleppo

did not suffer decline. Rather, in this case, the institutional complexes functioned to reorient the public functions of the city, particularly

with regards to commerce, and created a new monumental core. The street which stretched from the west foot of the citadel to the Antioch Gate (Bab Antakwya) and its adjacent area, locally called the Mdineh (literally, “city,” local pronounciation of “madina”), the cardo maximus of the Roman period, emerged as the economic center and

the monumental core of Ottoman Aleppo. This section of the city had always been important economically and ideologically, as the location of markets and the city’s Great Mosque. ‘The great Ottoman ” For a study of a Mamluk institutional complex, see Leonor Fernandes, “The Foundation of Baybars al-Jashankir: Its Waqf, History and Architecture,” Adugarnas

4 (1987): 21-42. .

" Aptullah Kuran, “Onbesinci ve Onaltinci Yiizyillarda Inga Edilen Osmanh

Kiillyelerinin Mimari Esaslan. Konusunda Bazi Goriisler,” In L. Milletlerarasi Tiirkolop Kongrest (Istanbul: Istanbul Universitesi Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Basimevi, 1979): 798-99.

The presence of a Great Mosque is not an absolute requirement of a kiilliye; any structure charitable or religious function can form its nucleus. In Aleppo, the mosques

are sometimes a quite minor element of an Ottoman complex, as in the case of the Khan al-Gumruk. ” Selma Akyazic: Ozkogak, “The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in the Sixteenth Century,” (Ph.D. Diss., University of London, 1997), and idem, “The Reasons for Building: ‘The Cases of Rustem Pasa and Yeni Valide Mosques,” in Cigdem Kafescioglu and Lucienne ‘Thys-Senocak, eds., Essays in Honor of Aptullah Kuran (Istanbul: Yapi Kredi, 1999): 265-276.

92 CHAPTER TWO awqaf (sing. wagf) established on this street, and on the thoroughfares parallel to it enhanced its centrality in urban life. The sheer extent of the covered sts of Aleppo, one of the largest in the world, uniformly vaulted in masonry, and the size and luxury of the commercial structures, established in the sixteenth century and modified incessantly since became the city’s most distinctive feature.” The mosques in this new monumental spine exhibited Rumi features derived from imperial models as a row of pencil shaped minarets and hemispherical domes lined the Mdineh. However, the Ottoman insti-

tutional complex also adapted to their specific context in the bazaar of Aleppo. The decoration of their caravanserais (locally known as khan, pl. khanat, han in modern ‘Turkish) echoed on a grander level the existing khan architecture in Aleppo, including Mamluk motifs and facade treatments. The creation of the monumental corridor with its many new social and economic functions radically reoriented the functions of the city towards the center. With few exceptions, the Ottomans did not destroy institutional complexes from previous dynasties that had formed ceremonial axes and economic foci. They were allowed to remain, but the great awqaf had the effect of rendering them obsolete. Structures endowed by past rulers and their ceremonial and ideological program were marginalized, left behind the hustle and bustle of the new Ottoman monumental core. It was this strategy of reorientation, rather than destruction, that characterized the process of Ottomanization

in Aleppo.’ Nonetheless, in a densely occupied and ancient urban fabric like the Mdineh, any new construction involved the takeover of existing " An excellent source on the suqs of Aleppo is still Sauvaget, Alep. M. Cezar, Typical Commercial Buildings of the Ottoman Classical Period and the Ottoman Construction

System (Istanbul: ‘Turkiye Is Bankasi, 1983), draws on Sauvaget and contains inaccuracies. Gaube and Wirth is especially useful for the nineteenth century. See also

Jean-Claude David, “Alep, dégradation et tentatives actuelles de réadaptation,” Bulletin d’Etudes Onentales 28 (1975); idem, “Le patrimoine, architectures et espaces,

pratiques et comportements, les souks et les khans d’Alep,” in Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 73-74 (1994): 189-205; Hiraytani, Aswag “al-Mdineh;”

Mahmoud Hreitani, and Jean-Claude David, “Souks traditionnels et centre moderne: espaces et pratiques a Alep (1930—1980),” BEO 36 (1984): 1-78; M. Scharabi, “Bemerkungen zur Bauform des Sigs von Aleppo,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts—Kairo 36 (1980): 391-410. “ Bierman observed a similar process in the urban functions of the cities of Crete

a century later, although the Christian heritage of those cities made for a very different situation. Bierman, “Ottomanization of Crete.”

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT 93 structures, and the appropriation of land tied up as waqf by previous patrons. The Ottomans exhibited a complex and flexible policy towards existing charitable institutions. The major monuments from the previous periods were undisturbed, and were even repaired.’ On occasion, however, the Ottomans demolished existing structures and expropniated

existing awqaf, as Ibn al-Hanbalit (d. 971/1563-4) the Aleppine historian and Hanbali Mufti of Aleppo duly noted.” Most of the reused sites had been open areas and commercial and residential structures; relatively few religious buildings were disturbed. The constitution of this new economic and monumental core was the result of a gradual transformation. ‘The functions and character of the complexes changed over time, responding to the variations in the uses and importance of the city to the central government, and the changes in its fortunes. The extensive building campaigns of the second half of the sixteenth century, when the Ottomans concentrated their building activity on the central market district and its immediate vicinity, constituted the first phase in the city’s Ottomanization, and

is discussed in Chapter 3. The transformation of the Mdineh was achieved through the accretion of charitable endowments by individual patrons; however, collectively these interventions amount to an urban policy enacted through waqf. Jean Sauvaget in his 1941 study of Aleppo forcefully argued against the notion of a broader urban plan governing single acts of patronage. He attributed the homogeneous appearance of the central monumental corridor to a fortunate coincidence, which was “fallacious” in that 1t produced an impression of planning while it was in fact the result of unplanned, haphazard growth.’’ André Raymond’s critique of Sauvaget addressed the historiographical and political context of that scholar’s emphasis

™ Jn some cases, the Ottomans added to existing endowments in the city, as in the case of the waqf of Nishanji Mehmed Pasha, see Chapter 3. ”” See for example, Ibn al-Hanbali 2:1, 263-264.

7“ nulle autre région de la ville ne fut Pobjet de pareils travaux de transformation. Engagés sans aucun plan d’ensemble et sans intervention officielle des autorités, nés

du hasard des spéculations individuelles...ces travaux se complétérent les uns les autres d’une maniére si heureuse qu’ils donnérent finalement a ‘la Cité’ l’apparence, purement fallacieuse, d'un ensemble monumental homogéne...le secours de la critique archéologique est indispensable pour lui rendre son vrai caractére: celui d’une juxtaposition de constructions disparates, dont les dates respectives s’échelonnent sur pres de 350 ans.” (Emphasis mine.) Sauvaget, Alep, 214. Sauvaget’s overall con-

ception of the “Islamic city” and his views on Ottoman Aleppo have been criticized, see Chapter 1.

o4 CHAPTER TWO on Ottoman decline.” A pernicious aspect of Sauvaget’s view of the

urban history of Aleppo, and of Islamic urbanism generally that needs emphasizing is his categorical denial of any type of urban planning, and the lack of a civic consciousness in the Islamic city. ‘This assumption casts Islamic civilization as intuitive rather than rational, in contrast to the tradition of western urban planning, with an implhed

hierarchical construction of western society as rational and thereby superior. In the case of the urban development of Ottoman Aleppo, while the range of surviving evidence does not include master plans as

proof of a broader urban organization, Sauvaget’s own research on the architectural remains indicates a concerted, deliberate transformation

of the city, not a random accumulation of individualistic acts of patronage. ‘his notion of a purposeful transformation carried a meaning that does not hinge on each patron’s intention. A series of actions taken by a succession of patrons can have a collective meaning independently of each individual action’s circumstances. Even if there

was no master plan, no civic or municipal body to devise such a plan, the coherence and continuity of the building habits over the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries suggest the maintenance of a practice, the awareness of a local tradition, and the will to uphold it.

Trade and the Rise of Aleppo

The timing of the building campaign in the Mdineh, with its emphasis on commercial structures was a function of an economic phenomenon

on a global scale, namely the change in patterns of production and trade in the second half of the sixteenth century.’” While the regional trade with Aleppo’s hinterland constituted the basis of the city’s econ-

omy,’ the long-distance trade made it relevant to wider economic flows. Economic historian Bruce Masters investigated the factors which contributed to the renewed centrality of Aleppo as a plaque tournante of the long-distance trade in the sixteenth century. Following the Ottoman conquest of Baghdad in 1534, products from the Indian Raymond has pointed out repeatedly that Sauvaget’s conclusions about the Ottoman period contradicted his own evidence. See particularly Raymond, “Grands waqfs,” and idem, “Islamic City, Arab City.” ” James Tracy, ed. The Rise of Merchant Empires: Long Distance Trade in the Early Modern World, 1550-1750 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1990). © Marcus, Aleppo, 28-30.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT ID subcontinent could now travel safely up the Euphrates and via the land routes to Aleppo, siphoning off some of the trade from the Red Sea.°' Ottoman rule ensured the safety of the caravans by keeping banditry at bay through intimidation or bnbery, and by building caravanserals, located about a day’s march apart sometimes with a resident garrison.” Western merchants soon gravitated towards Aleppo to take advantage of the trading concessions known as the Capitulations

(emttyazat), which the Sublime Porte granted to European states. Moreover, in the 1590’s, the opening of a conveniently located new port on the Mediterranean, Alexandretta (al-Iskandartina, or Iskenderun), inked the caravan routes converging on Aleppo to the maritime trade. In the covered bazaar, spices and silks from India and Iran were exchanged for New World silver and English broadcloth.™

The Ottoman building campaign, with its focus on the central bazaar and the omnipresence of commercial structures, was meant to both encourage the long distance trade, and to harness its profits. This concern explains the concentration of officially sponsored structures in precisely the marketplace section of the city: These vast constructions more than doubled the city’s core area, creating a vast interlocking network of miles of covered bazaar with shops, workshops, warehouses, and hostels for merchants all jostled together. . ..

These pious endowments were undertaken to exploit Aleppo’s rising economic fortunes, as the donors would not have invested their capital in projects to promote their eternal glory if they thought the projects were losing propositions. At the same time, however, this investment in the city’s commercial infrastructure on such a vast scale gave impe-

tus to the merchants traveling with the caravans to direct their movement toward Aleppo.”

In addition to building institutional complexes, the Ottomans renewed the infrastructure of the covered market as well: the entire length of *! This intensified after the end of the wars with the Safavids in 1555. Michel Tuchscherer, “Trade and Port Cities in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden Region in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century,” In Leila Tarazi Fawaz and C. A. Bayly, eds., Modernity and Culture: From the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2002), 28-45. * A seventeenth-century merchant provides the most thorough discussion of the caravan trade: Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Les szx voyages de M. 7. B. Taverner en Turquie,

en Perse et aux Indes (Rouen, 1713) [Orig. Paris, 1689], Vol. 1, 184-194.

8 EI, s.v. “Imtiyazat,” by Halil Inalcik. ** Masters, Origins of Dominance, 11-18. See also El’, c.v. “Harir-II: The Ottoman Empire,” by Halil Inalcik. ® Masters, Origins of Dominance, 18.

96 CHAPTER TWO this axis and of adjacent streets was lined with shops and vaulted, effectively turning this area into the empire’s largest marketplace. Aleppo quickly emerged as the third city in the empire after Istanbul and Cairo. Travelers and residents described the Mdineh as the most striking

aspect of the city. They commented on the beauty of its imposing stone structures, on the bewildering diversity of people, languages and products. A Jesuit missionary observed that despite the constant activity of the bazaar, a purposeful silence reigned, “as if commerce were a mystery.”®° The seventeenth-century Ottoman traveler Evliya praised

the fact that the interior of the bazaar remained refreshingly cool: This city of Aleppo cannot be traversed from top to bottom, street by street, without encountering market after market. The siuq al-Sultani [imperial market] consists of five thousand, seven hundred shops in all with two bedestan like khans. A goodly number of merchants possessing over 100,000 ghurtish are there. Except for the elixir of life all sorts of rare and precious merchandise can be found in the city. ... Most of the khans and markets are covered with lead roofing so that severe

heat does not affect them; even in July, the market is cool like the cellars of Baghdad. On most of the streets, watersellers pass by dispensing coolness while the shopowners and their companions pass the time in comfort. ... All the main thoroughfares are lined with Frankish sidewalks [i.e., paved]. Night and day, trash collectors are busy tidying up the streets with their baskets. The waste is then burned in the

bath houses and the streets remain quite clean... .°’

The rise of the long-distance trade and the creation of one of the largest covered markets in the world had profound implications for the production of the space of the city. Aleppo’s own diverse population was now supplemented by small communities of merchants from Europe as well as the Safavid and Mughal empires.*? Among silk traders, the merchant diaspora of Armenians from New Julta near Isfahan in the Safavid Empire established a satellite community

in Aleppo.* The European merchants were spearheaded by the %© J. Besson, s.j., La terre sainte, ou la mission de Fésus et des péres de la compagnie de

Jésus en Syne, originally published in 1662, reprinted in 1862 as La Syrie et la Terre Sainte au XVII’ siécle, cited in Georges Goyau, Un précurseur: Francois Picquet, Consul de Louis XIV en Alep et Evéque de Babylone (Paris: Geuthner, 1942), 57.

36 Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 377. Trans. from Masters, Origins of Dominance, *8 Rudolph P. Matthee, The Poltics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver (Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999). * Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: The Eurasian Trade of

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT oy) Venetians, who transferred their consulate from Tripoli to Aleppo in 1548.°° The French consulate was established in 1557, and the British Levant Company’s representative reached Aleppo in 1583.°' Granted

special legal status, exempt from the taxes paid by the resident Ottoman non-Muslim population of dhimmis, the European merchants were nonetheless restricted to the Mdineh for residence. ‘The foreign communities, often composed of temporary visitors as well as some

long-term residents, moved into apartments in the caravanserais of the Mdineh, which they transformed and inhabited according to their own practices of space.” It is due to the presence of merchants that Aleppo boasts one of the oldest dated protestant cemeteries in the world (1584). The many memoirs and letters written by individual merchants enable one to reconstruct the hfe of the Mdimeh, with its

constant anxieties over the rise and fall of the price of pepper, and the latest negotiations with the vali in office. The cast of characters included Ottoman Christians and Jews who as bilingual and bicultural dragomans mediated between the foreign merchant communities and the Ottoman legal and administrative structures, and catholic missionaries who followed foreign merchants, often living in the same quarters, creating makeshift churches within the caravanserais.

the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999); Artawazd Siwrmeian, Patmut*t1wn Halepi Ha yots’ (History of the Armenians of Aleppo)

(Paris: Araxes, 1950), especially Vol. 3, 1355-1908.

” The Venetian merchants had their fondaco in the Hader district outside the city walls as early as the thirteenth century, Sauvaget, Alep, 147. In the sixteenth century they moved to the Mdineh. "' For the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the most important accounts by foreign merchants who resided for significant periods in Aleppo are, Laurent d’Arvieux (1635-1702), Meémozres du Chevalier d’Arvieux, ed. Jean-Baptiste Labat (Paris: C. J. B. Delespine, 1735), especially volume 6; and the letters of William Biddulph in Hakluytus Posthumus, or, Purchas His Pilgrimes, Containing a History of the World in Sea Voyages and

Lande Travells by Enghshmen and Others, ed. Samuel Purchas (Glasgow: J. MacLehose

and Sons, 1905-07), vol. 8. ” On the spaces inhabited by Venetian merchants, see Michele Lamprakos, “Inhabiting the Sug: The Venetians in Early Ottoman Aleppo,” forthcoming. On the French community, see Jean-Gaude David, and Thierry Grandin, “L’habitat permanent des grands commergants dans les khans d’Alep a l’époque ottomane,” in Les villes dans Vempire ottoman: activités et sociétés, ed. Daniel Panzac (Paris: CNRS,

1994), vol. 2, 84-124. Jean-Caude David, “Le consulat de France a Alep sous Louis XIV. Témoins architecturaux, descriptions des consuls et des voyageurs,” Res Onentales

8 (1996): 13-24. For correspondence between the French consulate in Aleppo and the French Embassy in Istanbul, see Archives du Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres, Nantes, France (Henceforth MAE-Nantes), Constantinople (Ambassade), Série D (Commercial Correspondance with the Echelles), Alep, Cartons 1-108.

38 CHAPTER TWO From the perspective of urbanism, the central corridor became an exceptional urban space, extraterritorial to the rest of the city. Even its colloquial name—the “Mdineh,” literally “the city,” designates it as a special urban segment, a city within the city. The Mdineh was a space of uncommon openness, a place of encounter, where religious communities and diverse social strata interacted: Muslims, Jews and Christians; Ottomans and foreigners from the East and the West; imperial officials and local notables; Bedouin, agriculturalists and urban dwellers; wealthy merchants and judges; journeymen, porters and beggars. In this openness, the Mdineh contrasted with the customary discretion of most urban neighborhoods, with their strong social identity and often self-contained economies.’’ Dense with public and commercial buildings (mosques, legal courts, madrasas, as well as caravanserais, workshops, coffeehouses, and warehouses), the central market did not comprise conventional homes. The communities who inhabited its caravanserais were the foreign merchants (primarily

from the Ottoman domains, Europe and the Safavid Empire) and the missionaries, who were by law and by profession exceptional and transitory sojourners. ‘hey were also almost uniformly male, as few merchants settled their families in Aleppo. By contrast, in the prestigious

neighborhoods that surrounded the bazaar, families with strong local roots inhabited lavish courtyard houses.” Social boundaries governed the crossings from the Mdineh to the rest of the city. Measures were enacted to prevent the European merchants from fraternizing with the local Christian communities beyond professional interaction, which effectively precluded their settlement into the majority Christian neighborhoods. Conversely, rules were issued to limit the forays of respectable

women into the Mdineh, particularly of local converts to Catholicism

who wished to attend mass in the makeshift churches of the caravanserais.”” With its institutions of administration, commerce, and ”* An excellent description of neighborhood life in an early modern Ottoman city is found in Marcus, Aleppo, esp. Chapters 8 and 9. “* On domestic architecture in Ottoman Aleppo, see among others, Jean-Claude

David, “Une grande maison de la fin du XVI° siécle a Alep,” BEO 50 (1998): 61-96; idem, “La cour-jardin des maisons d’Alep a l’€poque ottomane,” Res Onentales 3 (1991): 63-72; and idem, “Deux maisons a Alep,” in L*habitat traditionnel dans les pays musulmans autour de la Méditerranée (Cairo: IFAO, 1990), vol. 2, 467-517 and

| plates CXXXVI-CXL.

» Jean-Claude David, “L’espace des chrétiens a Alep: ségrégation et mixité, stratégies communautaires,” REMMM 55-56 (1990/ 1-2): 150-170; idem, “Les territoires de groupes a Alep a l’€poque ottomane. Cohésion urbaine et formes d’exclusion,” REMMM 79-80 (1996): 225-255.

THE ALEPPINE CONTEXT he sociability, then, the Mdineh was a dominantly male space. The social boundaries enacted to keep foreigners and locals in their place effectively created an extraterritorial space in the middle of the city.

Perhaps this is the reason why the marketplace became known as the Mdineh: in many ways, it was a city within a city. The decisive urban development of sixteenth-century Aleppo, then,

was the reorientation of the city center towards the Mdineh which

also emerged as the monumental corridor of the Ottoman city. Through myriad individual acts of piety, endowments were created that constructed, restored, rebuilt and expanded what came to be the new urban center, dedicated to commerce, craft, law and religious practice.

CHAPTER THREE

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR: THE GREAT COMPLEXES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The architectural projects that have become emblematic of the Ottomanization of Aleppo created a monumental corridor along the city’s ancient cardo maximus that stretched from the western foot of the citadel to Antioch Gate (Fig. 2). Gommerce had always thrived in this section of the city where the Great Mosque and the law courts were located near the seat of government. As Aleppo emerged as the node in the profitable long-distance trade linking East and West, the pre-

dominantly commercial nature of the institutions represented the Ottoman drive both to encourage economic development and to profit

from it. In addition, cumulatively these complexes led the elaboration of an urban language of forms and spatial interrelationships proper to Ottoman Aleppo. This chapter draws on a close reading of the architecture of the complexes, imperial archives as well as Aleppine chronicles to trace the development of this process and to detail its impact.

The Khusruwtyya' Complex

In 1546, at the tme of completion of Husrev Pasha’s architectural complex which included a mosque, a madrasa or college for the study

of law, and a caravanserai, nothing visually similar to it existed in Aleppo. The distinctive Ottoman silhouette of the mosque, its low hemispherical dome covered with lead tiles, and its graceful pencilshaped minaret, were novel to the city, as was the spatial configuration

of the complex, featuring a low fence around the structures which isolated the monumental ensemble and ensured its visibility (Fig. 3, Pl. 11, 12, 13). In its architectural style, this complex was the first ' An alternate spelling is Khusriifiyya, since the name rendered in Ottoman transliteration as Husrev occurs in Arabic sources alternately as Khusri, Khusruf, or Khusrif.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 6]

to introduce the Rumi aesthetic to Aleppo. In its form as well as its location, it signaled the Ottoman presence more than any other architectural intervention. Date and Architect

The date of this complex has occasioned debate. ‘The mosque’s foun-

dation inscription states that it was built in the reign of Sultan Stileyman by the vizier Khusri (Husrev) Pasha, and the chronogram yields the date of 953/1546.* The local sources clarify the circumstances of construction. Ibn al-Hanbali (d. 971/1563-—4) stated that Husrev Pasha ordered the building of the mosque after he became vizier and the project was completed by 951/1544.° Al-Batrinr (d.

1046/1636) stated that the Mulla Muhammad, the Nazir of the Awqaf of Aleppo, ordered the destruction of the Madrasa Asadiyya to make way for the Khusruwiyya in 935/1528.* Possibly a scribal

error transposed the Hiri date 953, to obtain 935. Since 1531 1s the earliest possible date for Husrev Pasha’s appointment in Aleppo, 1528 seems too early. The sources present vague information regarding the identity of

the architect. Ibn al-Hanbali indicated that Husrev Pasha’s manumitted slave Furukh supervised construction while his master served

as vizier in Istanbul,? and that an unnamed Rumi Christian architect (mi‘mar rumi nasrani) built the structure. The term Rumi implies * MCIA 1:2, inscription 278, p. 409. Jean Gaulmier, “Note sur létat de l’enselgnement traditionnel a2 Alep” Bulletin d’Etudes Onentales 9 (1942-43), 13-14. It is

actually a double inscription. The first, published by Herzfeld and Gaulmier, is a semi-circular foundation inscription, which includes a Qur’anic phrase (72:18) and the names of Sultan Stlayman and the vizier Husrev Pasha. ‘The second inscription, on a rectangular plaque, is a chronogram that yields the date 953. It 1s quoted by Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 374.

* Ibn al-Hanbalf 1:2, 585. 951/1544 is also the date given in Ghazzi 1992, UJ, 93, who summarizes three endowment deeds of the Khusrufiyya, 93-97. * Abu’l-Yumn al-Batriint (d. 1046/1636) edited al-Durr al-Muntakhab ft Tarikh Mamlakat Halab by Muhibb al-Din Abu’l-Fadl Muhammad Ibn al-Shihna (d. 890/1485).

Information on events that occurred after Ibn al-Shihna’s death is attributable to al-Batrini. Ibn al-Shihna, Al-Durr al-muntakhab fi tarikh mamlakat Halab, Ed. Y. I. Sarkis (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1909), 199.

» Biographical entry for “Furtikh ibn ‘Abd al-Mannan al-Rimt, al-Khusrawt, mawla Khusri Basha al-wazir,” in Ibn al-Hanbali, 2:1, 10-13. See also Ibn alHanbali, 1:2, 585: Furtkh renovated a khan (which must be the Khan Qurt Bak) and set it up as waqf after his patron’s death; which indicates that the Khan Qurt Bak was not completed by Husrev Pasha’s son Qurt Bak, as has been surmised. The first two waqfiyyas summarized by Ghazzi bear the name of Mustafa b. Sinan, brother of Husrev Pasha, better known as Lala Mustafa Pasha.

62 CHAPTER THREE either that the architect was Greek Orthodox, or that he was from the Rumelia region. The Office of Imperial Architects in Istanbul included non-Muslim architects while the chief architect tended to be a Muslim; thus Ibn al-Hanbali’s statement must mean that an architect from the imperial center supervised the Khusruwiyya’s construction.”

Some sources attribute the Khusruwiyya to Sinan himself. The Lezkwretii’l-Ebniye (ca. 1586), an inventory of monuments attributed to

the architect, lists it. Evliya Gelebi noted during his 1671 wisit to Aleppo that the “Eski Husrev Pasa Camii” was the work of Sinan.’ This attribution has caused difficulty for those who wish to reconstruct a chronology of Sinan’s career. On the basis of Sinan’s known movements, including the fact that he had wintered in Aleppo between two military campaigns against the Safavid Empire, and he did not

return to Aleppo after 1538, Goodwin dated the Khusruwiyya to 1536-1537.° Bates suggested the possibility that Sinan built the mosque

when he stationed in Aleppo in the 1540’s on the Haj.” Either possibility assumes Sinan’s physical presence during the construction of every structure on the Tezhkive list. Aptullah Kuran who dated the mosque to the 1540’s, admitted the possibility that it might have been designed by Sinan in Istanbul then executed by an assistant in Aleppo.'® Ibn al-Hanbali’s information supports the last hypothesis. ° The chief architect was a Muslim, but not necessarily a native born Muslim. It is unlikely that Ibn al-Hanbali would persist in calling a convert to Islam a Christian. For the composition of the corps of architects, see Bates, “Two Documents,” and Kuran, Sinan; ‘Turan, “Hassa Mimarlar.” Kafescioglu, who did not use Ibn al-Hanbali, hypothesized that the Husrev Pasha mosque was designed in the imperial center, then supervised by an architect sent from the capital, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 84. ’ Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 375. * Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 202. In a later work, Goodwin dated the complex to 1545-6, presumably on the basis of the epigraphy, Sinan: Ottoman Architecture and its Values Today (London: Saqi Books, 1993), 58. The 1536-37 date is genrally accepted; see Oktay Aslanapa, Turkish Art and Architecture (New York and Washington:

Praeger Publishers, 1971), 217. Gaulmier, 13, who opted for the 1537 date, stated that the 400th anniversary of the mosque was celebrated in 1936. Raymond, “Activité

architecturale,” 379, and 383, n. Il, believed that the Khusruwiyya was built at the instigation of Stileyman I, possibly in 1535-36, when the sultan wintered in Aleppo, see 383, n. 11. ’ Bates, “Facades,” 141. On the basis of the patron’s known movements, epigraphy and the style, Kuran presented two possible dates: 1534-1538, when Husrev Pasha “was Beylerbeyi of Damascus (of which Aleppo was part) [sic]”; and after 1541, the patron’s appointment as vizier, Aptullah Kuran, Sindn: The Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture (Washington,

DC and Istanbul: Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., 1987), 54. The city of Aleppo

was never a part of the province of Damascus, rather it was the capital of the

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 63

Regardless of the period of the construction, the epigraphy securely

provides 1546 as a completion date.'' As for whether the architect was Sinan in person or a subaltern imperial architect, the design of the complex participates in the broader cultural practice of placing standardized Ottoman-style mosques in strategic locations throughout the cities of the empire. ‘That the mosque of Husrev Pasha breaks

no new ground in Ottoman architectural theory is not due to a lack of originality. Rather, it was precisely the fact that the mosque was faithful to the imperial model that constituted its meaning: the novelty of this structure was not its form, but rather the injection of a completely new style into the urban fabric of Aleppo.'? Whether or not Sinan was personally involved in this project, the building certainly bears the stamp of “Sinan’s firm,” the Office of Imperial Archi-

tects; the “Rumi Christian architect” was a member of the Office, dispatched to Aleppo to implement a project conceived in Istanbul. Form

The central monumental cluster forcefully expresses the Ottoman visual

idiom, particularly the mosque with its low hemispherical dome, dome-covered portico, and pencil-shaped minaret. ‘The components of the kiilliye in its entirety occupied 4 to 5 hectares.'’ The design clusters the central religious buildings and surrounds them with a low fence. A great mosque (jamt‘), a madrasa and dependencies surround vildyet of Haleb. While Kuran does not provide a source for his information on Husrev Pasha, the dates he cites for Husrev Pasha’s governorship of Damascus are inconsistent with the official’s biography, for which the sources are: Jean-Louis BacquéGrammont, “Notes et documents sur Divane Husrev Pasa,” Rocznik Onentalistyczny 41:1 (1979), 21-55; idem, ET’, s.v. “Khosrew Pasha;” Siireyya, Szill-c ‘Osman?, vol. 2,

272. According to Siireyya, Husrev Pasha served as beglerbegi of Aleppo between 938/1531 and 941/1534, was appointed vizier in 943/1536, and died in 951/1544 (note that the dates on p. 272 are to be corrected: errata section, 442). Siireyya may not be entirely reliable. According to Bacqué-Grammont, the record is unclear about Husrev Pasha’s appointment at Aleppo. At the time of his appointment to the beglerbegilik of Damascus in 940/1534, he was sanjak-begi of either Aleppo or Tripoli, “Notes,” 40. Husrev Pasha served as beglerbegi of Egypt between Rajab 941/February 1535 and Jumada al-Ukhra 943/December 1536. ‘The waqfiyya preserved in Ankara does not specify the date of the structures’ completion, VGM, Wagfiyya of Husrev Pasha, Aleppo, 969/1561, defter 583, pp. 149-150. ” David, “Domaines,” 181.

Raymond, “Grands Wadfs,” 115, based this number on the components of the waqf detailed in the waqfiyyat summarized in Ghazzi, 2, II, 93-97.

64 CHAPTER THREE a courtyard centered on an ablution fountain.'* The earthquake of 1821 heavily damaged these structures.” The income-generating buildings of the endowment, as detailed in the waqfiyya,’° are located outside this enclosure. Only a caravanserai known as Khan al-Shina

is nearby, to the north.'’ The remaining dependencies of the wagf, scattered throughout the city, include the caravanserai of Khan Quart Bak named after the patron’s son, a bath, the Hammam al-Nahhasin," stables, a bakery, shops, and houses for renting. Beyond Aleppo, the endowment impacted its hinterland as well, as it collected revenues

from properties in the areas of Jabbul (northeast of Aleppo), workshops including a masbagha (dyeing workshop) in ‘Ayntab, income from villages in the kagd of Kilis (north of Aleppo), near Antioch, Hama and Hims.'° The centerpiece of the endowment, the great mosque, conforms to the classical Ottoman mosque type, with minor alterations (Fig. 3).

It has been interpreted as a combination of the early Ottoman '* All the contemporary documents—the wagqfiyya, Ibn al-Hanbali—refer consis-

tently to a mosque, and a madrasa. Goodwin, and after him, David, speak of a double madrasa. Perhaps Goodwin mistook some of the dependencies (such as the kitchen, no longer functioning as such since at least the 1930’s) for a second madrasa.

Jamil Pasha, governor of Aleppo, repaired the southern part of the mosque in 1884; the northern fagade (perhaps the madrasa, rather than the portico) was restored in 1911 as documented by an inscription; a further restoration took place in 1919, Gaulmier, 18, Ghazzi 2, I, 97, Tabbakh 2, IJ, 158. The original dome collapsed, David, “Domaines,” 185. ‘The original lead tiles covering the dome have not survived. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203 commented on the poor renovation of the madrasa in 1901, without citing a source (I was unable to confirm Goodwin’s restoration date). The Awgqaf administration initiated a thorough restoration of the mosque in 1999. '° The waqfiyya preserved in Ankara (VGM, Wagfiyya of Husrev Pasha), is dated 969/1561. Ghazzi summarized three waqfiyyat, of which the third is very close to

the document in Ankara. The dates of Ghazzi’s three documents are: Jumada 965/April 1558, Rabi‘ I 967/December 1559, Jumada 974/1566. Gaulmier, 13-18, translated the same three documents, without citing a source, presumably Ghazzi. The information in Ghazzi’s waqfiyyat does not conflict with the waqfiyya preserved in Ankara; the date seems to be the only divergence. For an analytical table of the dependencies of the waqf, see Gaube and Wirth, 131-132. '’ "This caravanserail was renovated by the Syrian government in the early 1990s and now serves as the official handicraft stig. The wagqfiyya referred to it as a

qaysariyya. The current tenants of the Khan al-Shina explained to me that the name of the building derives from a word in Egyptian dialect, meaning horse stable, which began to be used after the Egyptian occupation of the area under Ibrahim Pasha in the nineteenth century. '8 Hammam al-Nahhasin: Gaube & Wirth Cat. no. 110. Also known as Hammam al-Sitt, the name used in VGM, Waafiyya of Husrev Pasha, 148. ' VGM, Wagfiyya of Husrev Pasha, 148-149; Ghazzi, op. cit.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 65

“inverted ‘I’ plan and the single-dome plan of classical Ottoman architecture.”” A five-bay portico precedes a domed cube that constitutes the main prayer hall. The columns supporting the portico are set on a podium. ‘The portico is wider than the prayer hall. ‘Two small domed chambers flank the main hall, recalling the tabhane rooms of early Ottoman T-plan mosques that doubled as dervish lodges.”’ The low dome rests on a drum pierced by sixteen windows and is supported by eight small flying buttresses. While the proportions of the dome, minaret and mosque may appear squat by Istanbul Ottoman standards, this cupola was significantly larger than any existing dome in Aleppo. With its diameter of approximately 18 meters, it enclosed

an area of 290 square meters.” In comparison, the main dome of the Mamltik-period Bimaristan Arghuni (1354) covered a space of 70 square meters, and that of the Zangid-period Matbakh al-‘Ajami (12th century) topped a space of 90 square meters.” In her analysis of the fagades and approaches to Ottoman mosques, Ulkii Bates noted that whenever a provincial mosque was built in the

Ottoman style, certain architectural features were consistently and faithfully reproduced, while others occasionally deviated from the Istanbul model: “The unaltered part [1.e. the part which conformed to Rumi models] of the mosque is the part that mattered most: its front with a portico, entrance, and minaret.””* Bates singled out features that were always visible from the exterior, the minaret and the main approach to the mosque with a portico and entrance door surmounted by a dedicatory inscription, as the salient features of provin-

cial Ottoman mosques. Additional emblematic Ottoman features

*” Aslanapa, Turkish Art, 217.

7! Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 478 n. 35. For Goodwin the architect used the “vestigial tabhane rooms” to “mask” the extremities of the too-wide portico. A similar device is used at two other mosques attributed to Sinan, Mihrimah Sultan at

Edirnekap1 and Sokolli Mehmed Pasha at Kadirga, both in Istanbul. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203.

* David, “Domaines,” 185. David observed that previous domes in Aleppo were not larger than eight meters in diameter in the case of domes made of stone, and not larger than nine meters in the case of brick. The much larger dome of the KKhusruwiyya may have been a technical stretch for a local builder (assuming the builder was local), leading to the eventual collapse of the original dome. For a discussion on means of measuring domes by Ottoman architects, Giilru Necipoglu, “Challenging the Past,” 174-175. ** David, “Domaines,” 181. He also notes that the walls of the prayer hall are thinner than those of the other Ottoman mosques of Aleppo (2m50 rather than 4m). + Bates, “Facades,” 138.

66 CHAPTER THREE included the low hemispherical dome, often visible to the pedestrian

from the exterior, and in the interior, the vast prayer space under the dome, uninterrupted by columns or piers. The Khusruwiyya faithfully reproduces these critical elements. Its minaret conforms to central Ottoman models, and recognizably so: Evliya Celebi described it as being in Raimi style (Rum tarzz).” Its faceted shaft, interrupted by a balcony with a cut stone balustrade, is topped by a rather squat cone covered with lead tiles.*° It is ornamented by a band of blue-and-white tiles under the balcony,*’ and a joggled stringcourse in the shape of crests slightly above the base.” The fagade of the mosque also conforms to central models. ‘The five

arches of the portico feature voussoirs in alternating colors, while the central arch exhibits elaborate joggled voussoirs (ablagq). ‘The cen-

tral arch, which surmounts the entrance of the mosque, is singled out by other means as well: the roofline above it, and the dome which surmounts it, are slightly higher, and small e@-de-beuf openings grace the spandrels on either side.*”? Columns with mugarnas capitals support the arches.*’ Four windows and two niches interspersed

among them articulate the facade wall, but are out of alignment with the arches. The treatment of the windows 1s Ottoman with a erilled opening surrounded by a large stone frame. Surmounting the windows, semi-circular bands of polychrome underglaze tiles feature floral designs and an inscription cartouche.”’ At the center of the facade, the elaborate main entrance to the haram

(prayer hall) also follows the classic Ottoman pattern, with local touches. ‘The podium that supports the portico is interrupted at the ® Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 374. Its placement at the northeastern side

of the prayer hall was less usual. Minarets, when there was only one, usually appeared on the northwestern side of a mosque. Bates, “Fagades,” 137. ** The minaret cap is original. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203. *” These are Damascus tiles according to Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203. *® Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203, characterized this as “Syrian influence,” but

noted that other mosques attributed to Sinan in Istanbul feature this band as well. * Goodwin saw the e@il-de-beuf openings as an Aleppine particularism, but David,

“Domaines,” 193, n. 8, pointed out that this detail occurs for example in the Bali Pasha Mosque in Istanbul (1504). This feature occurs in the ‘Adiliyya, but not in the Bahramiyya. * The two central columns of red granite from Aswan are nineteenth-century modifications: Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt replaced the originals during his rule in Aleppo in the 1830’s. *! These Qur’anic inscriptions are unpublished. The provenance of the tiles is unknown, but they were the first of their kind to be used in the former Mamlik lands, Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 84.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 67

bay in front of the entrance, which is level with the courtyard. Four

steps on either side connect the podium to the lower floor of the entrance bay. Contrasting with the otherwise plain wall, a rectangular stone frame surrounds the entrance. Within this frame, a black stone band surrounds a handsome mugarnas niche. Two engaged braided colonnettes, reminiscent of local Mamluk models, flank the wooden door.” An arch with joggled voussoirs, a field of geometric ornament,

a rectangular chronogram plaque, and a semi-circular foundation inscription surmount the door. Both inscriptions are in the Arabic language and in a naskhi Ottoman visual style. All the crucial elements of the mosque’s entrance carefully reproduce Istanbul models, while

the less essential features (e.g. the alignment of the windows with the arches) are not rigorously imitated. ‘The design uses “local” forms associated with Mamluk architecture, but discreetly: the ablag arch

above the entrance door, the decorative ring at the base of the minaret. Critics categorized such formal elements as “Aleppine,” “Syrian” or even “Arab.”°° In fact they also occur in central Ottoman structures. ‘he diffusion of such elements makes the filiation of particular forms a thorny issue, and suggests instead a visual conversation between the center and the periphery. Nevertheless, the portal of the mosque, while conforming to cental Ottoman expectations, also clearly exhibited the combination of central and local formal elements.

The interior of the prayer hall, with its unified space under the dome, was novel in a city where the hypostyle mosque type predominated. A Rimi feature, appearing in Aleppo for the first time, was the use of calligraphic discs painted on the pendentives bearing the names of God, Muhammad, the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, Hasan and Husayn. The mihrab of marble inlay recalls earlier local models. ‘Two large candlesticks flanked the mihrab.* Beyond the Mosque, the cluster of buildings centered on the foun-

tain in the middle of the courtyard, featuring an Ottoman-style sadwvan, flanked by large square planters with fruit trees, in the man-

ner of interior courts in Aleppo.*? To the enclosure’s north, the ” The braided engaged colonnettes and their Mamluk precedents are discussed in the section on the Khan al-Gumruk. * Kafescioglu carefully analyzed the combination of central Ottoman and “Syrian”

elements at the Mosque of Husrev Pasha, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 84-85. ** ‘The endowment deed stipulated that the candles be renewed every year. VGM, Wagfiyya of Husrev Pasha, 149. * This feature obtains in public building as well as domestic architecture, such as Bayt Dallal in the Judayda neighborhood.

68 CHAPTER THREE much-renovated madrasa currently comprises ten domed cells each opening on the courtyard. An arcade formally integrates the facades

| of the mosque and the madrasa. ‘The northern entrance aligned with the mosque door bears a dome as well. Modifications over the last two centuries make the identification of the other structures within the enclosure difficult. ‘The building to the west of the courtyard, with eight small domes and comprising three rooms, possibly was the kitchen-bakery described in the wagqfiyya.*° A garden-cemetery to the south of the mosque includes a small domed mausoleum of unknown date, where the patron’s wife, son and nephew are buried.”’ Despite their altered state, these dependencies form a unified architectural ensemble of lower buildings dominated by the mosque.

The Khan al-Shuna across the street architecturally conforms to the ensemble. Like the dependencies within the main enclosure, it

has a lower roofline than the mosque. Although described as a qaysariyya in the waqfiyya, the Khan al-Shuna’s groundplan appears as a truncated version of a caravanserai.”® The typical caravanserai comprises a rectangular courtyard surrounded by a two-story build-

ing. In the Khan al-Shiina, a triangular courtyard is lined on two sides by a single-story structure. Four pillars support a dome at the center of the northern wing. Site constraints explain this unusual plan: the main cluster of buildings arranged around a courtyard with a central axis, had to be placed on the irregularly shaped site, with the obligatory orientation towards the gibla. ‘The trapezoidal plot left over produced a truncated caravanseral. The remaining components of the endowment were located else-

where in the city. Another caravanserai, Khan Qiart Bak, in the Suwaygqat ‘Ali quarter, was a converted former Mamluk palace with two monumental entrances. The Ottoman layer of the structure dates to ca. 1540.°° The Hammam al-Nahhiasin or Hammam al-Sitt, located © In addition, an L-shaped structure with one large dome and a series of smaller domes lies to the west of the mosque. *’ Flusrev Pasha was buried in a mausoleum built by Sinan in 1545 in Yeni Bahce, Istanbul, Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 206. The waqfiyya dated November

1566, summarized by Ghazzi and translated by Gaulmier, 15-18, indicates that Husrev Pasha’s wife and son were buried in the Khusruwiyya. Mehmed Pasha son of Lala Mustafa Pasha (d. 1578), Husrev Pasha’s nephew, was also buried here, Tabbakh 2, VI, 109. °° The architectural difference between these two types of commercial structures seems to be that a caravanserai often comprises a courtyard in its middle. See most recently, David, Sucwaygat ‘Az, 25-33. An undated inscription and a

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 69

in the Mdineh, also a preexisting structure incorporated into the Khusruwiyya’s wagqf, probably dates from the Ayyubid period.” Spatial Order

In addition to the replication of central forms, an Ottoman sense of monumentality and visibility dominates the design of the Khusruwiyya, and opposes it to the Mamluk visual idiom. ‘The Aleppo case echoes

the divergent manner in which Mamluk and Ottoman buildings engage the pedestrian, as analyzed by Ulkii Bates: |The facade of an Ottoman imperial mosque] contrasts... with the imposingly composed facades and monumental portals of the Mamlik-

period buildings in Cairo. The Mamluk fagades, in fact, are part of the urban environment intimately connected with the public and its spaces. ‘hey are defined and in turn define the thoroughfares of Cairo by forming ornamental walls along them. The facade of the Ottoman imperial mosque is partly hidden behind layers of gates, colonnades, and courts. Such a mosque is meant to be seen in its awesome totality from afar, being raised on natural or artificial terraces.*!

The spatial arrangement of the structures inside the Khusruwtyya’s enclosure has no precedent in Aleppo: it presents series of freestanding

buildings gathered within an enclosure. Previous complexes in this locale comprised a structural unit with a single fagade on the street subdivided internally into sections with various functions (as in the Jami° al-'Tawashi discussed in Chapter 2). ‘The Khusruwiyya affords an enclosed spatial experience where a clear hierarchy of size distinguishes among structurally independent buildings. ‘The low fence and its surrounding streets spatially demarcate the central cluster from the surrounding urban fabric. Within the cluster, the lower rooflines

blazon remain from the Mamluk layer of the structure. Gaube, Jnschriften, 21, inscription no. 21. Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 97, no. 64; Sauvaget, Alep, 215 n. 808; Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plates XX, XXIV, LXII (groundplan); Ghazzt 2, U, 150. Gaube & Wirth, 374, No. 265; Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 376.

* The original name seems to have been hammam al-Sitt. It acquired the name of hammam al-Nahhasin because of its proximity to the Khan al-Nahh4sin, built as part of the waqf of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha of 1555-56. It is listed in Ibn al-Shihna’s medieval topography of the city: Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 104, no. 76. Jean-Claude David and Dominique Hubert, “Le dépérissement du hammam dans la ville: le cas d’Alep,” Les cahiers de la recherche architecturale 10/11 (April 1982), 70,

Groundplan: 64, fig. 66, photographs: 71, figs. 79, 80. Sauvaget, Alep, 142, fig. 32. *' Bates, “Facades,” 134.

70 CHAPTER THREE of the subsidiary buildings show off the centerpiece of the ensemble, the mosque. Moreover, the axial approach to the mosque entrance 1s carefully staged. The northern entrance of the enclosure aligns pre-

cisely with the main entrance of the mosque with its foundation inscription, which in turn aligns with the mihrab centered on the qibla wall, and with the small mausoleum beyond. Nothing obstructs

this axis for a pedestrian standing at the northern threshold of the enclosure, except for the low fountain. However, the northern entrance

is not itself prominent, located on the narrow street which separates the enclosure from the Khan al-Shina. The mosque’s fagade 1s most clearly visible to the pedestrian when he/she stands outside the enclosure in the open space at the foot of the citadel (the northwestern angle of the mosque).** Yet the principle of the axial organization of the central structure is retained. The same spatial organization ona grander scale governs the design of the central clusters of the imperial kidltyes of Istanbul, such as the Siileymantye (1550-7), representing

a central concern of classical Ottoman public architecture. While many Mamluk structures stage elaborate facades lining the street, reorienting the body of the building toward Mecca if needed (as in the Jami‘ al-Tawashi, again), the Khusruwiyya echoes the Ottoman relationship to the street instead. Unlike Mamluk architecture, the Ottoman mosque retreats from the street, and 1s meant to be seen from afar. Further, in Mamluk architecture, a dome always and only denotes a mausoleum even in multifunctional buildings, whereas in Ottoman architecture mosques feature a central dome. Nevertheless, seen from the northwestern angle, the angle of maximum visibility, the dome, minaret and portico, the key architectonic elements indexing the “Ottomanness” of the mosque, so different from the visual

regime of the Mamluks, are readily apparent. The isolation of the ensemble and the lower rooflines of the subsidiary structures ensure precisely the legibility of the key Ottoman elements from the street. Moreover, the angle of maximum visibility makes apparent the relationship between the new Ottoman sign and previous monuments. From this standpoint the pedestrian obtains an unobstructed view of the citadel’s main gate and the Tower of Sultan Siileyman. Turning his/her head, the pedestrian standing here can view the * Tt is perhaps because this angle of the structure emerges as the most visible that the northwestern gate bears the sign which proclaims the contemporary function of the enclosure: al-thanawtyya al-shardyya, a state secondary school which empha-

sizes the study of Islamic law.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 7]

Mosque-Mausoleum of one of the most important builders of Aleppo, the Ayyubid al-Zahir Ghazi. It cannot be coincidental that this point

of maximum visibility was the site of the weekly market. The city dwellers who came to trade and to socialize could not escape Ottoman

rule made visible at this spot in the form of the Great Mosque of Husrev Pasha and its spatial relationship with surrounding structures. Beyond the viewpoint of the pedestrian standing at its threshold, the Khusruwiyya also altered Aleppo’s skyline. This was visible from two critical viewpoints. ‘The mosque complex was plainly apparent to anyone looking down at the city from the fortress, and seen from the western approach to the city, just beyond Antioch Gate, the new pencil-shaped minaret of the Ottomans soared in the shadow of the citadel. Patron

The Khusruwiyya reproduced the distinctive form associated with Istanbul in its mosque, and introduced a new mode of spatial organization to the landscape of a provincial city. ‘Through it, its patron appears to have fulfilled the mandate of the upwardly mobile Ottoman oficial by placing the stamp of the Rumi-style institutional complex in a provincial setting. However, the study of the patronage of Husrev Pasha in the provinces over his lifetime reveals that he did not always choose the canonical Ottoman form. He occasionally availed himself of the locally dominant style, as in the case of his sabil-kuttab (fountain-Koranic school) in Cairo, which reproduces late Mamluk forms.*”

More than one stylistic choice was available to Ottoman patrons in each city, and the form of a public building sponsored by an official Ottoman patron was not always Rumi, rather it was the result of a complex selective process that responded to the local context. Husrev Pasha, known as “Divane,”"* was an exemplar of a successful Ottoman official of the first half of the sixteenth century.* A Bosnian

* The sabil-kuttab of Husrev Pasha is adjacent to the Madrasa-Mausoleum of Sultan Salih Najm al-Din Ayyib (1535), on an important artery of Cairo, al-Mu‘izz street, that already boasted several Mamlak monuments. Bates, “Fagades.” * The nickname of “Divane,” “Crazy,” probably referred to his zeal in battle rather than to his mental state. Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 22. Suireyya used the synonym “Deli.” * ‘The biographical information: EY’, s.v. “Khosrew Pasha,” by Bacqué-Grammont; Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 21-55; Stireyya, Syill-1 “Osmant, vol 2, 272 (the source

used by Bates), and Ibn al-Hanbali, 1:2, 584-585.

72 CHAPTER THREE who had entered imperial service through the devsirme, or child levy, he ascended the military hierarchy. He distinguished himself during the campaign of Chaldiran in 1514 and participated in the conquest

of Diyarbakir in 1515, which paved the way for the defeat of the Mamluk empire. He then held a series of provincial governorates, including a post in Aleppo in the early 1530’s,* and participated in a campaign against the Safavids in 1534—35, wintering in Aleppo.*’

Replacing Hadim Siileyman Pasha he served as governor of the vilayet of Misir (February 1535-December 1536). The position was prestigious due to the value of the zrsdlyye-1 hazine, the cash revenue of Misir. ‘The brevity of these appointments was characteristic of the Ottoman policy of rotating officials serving in the provinces, thus preventing them from creating a local base of power. He returned

to Istanbul as the fourth vizier in 1541, at the time of the grand vizierate of Hadim Siileyman Pasha. Riistem Pasha, second vizier, was apparently able to pit the two former governors of Egypt against each other. The two came to blows in a widely reported incident in the Sultan’s presence in 1544. As a result, the Sultan dismissed both from office, making Rtistem Pasha Grand Vizier. In shame, Husrev Pasha starved himself to death within a year.*® The elder bro-

ther of Lala Mustafa Pasha,*? Husrev Pasha was married to Shah-i

*© ‘The rank and date of this post cannot be ascertained. Bacqué-Grammont was able to confirm only that he had been sanjak begi of Aleppo before 1534. BacquéGrammont’s articles made no mention of Husrev Pasha’s killiye in Aleppo. Stireyya

stated that he was beglerbegi of Aleppo at some point between 928/1521 and 938/153. Ibn al-Hanbali, 1:2, 584, also stated that he was a wali of Aleppo. Ghazzi 2, II, 203, was unable to pinpoint an exact date for Husrev’s governorate of Aleppo. ” "This “Campaign of the Two ‘Iraqs” was described in Matrakci’s famous manuscript, the Beyan-1 menazil, discussed in Chapter 6. See facsimile edition: Huseyin G. Yurdaydin, Nasuhii’s-Silahi (Matrakgt) Beyan-t menazil- sefer-1 Trakeyn-i sultan Stileyman

khan (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1976). *8 Bacqué-Grammont, EFI’, noted that this was a rare case of suicide among Ottoman officials. The incident between Stileyman Pasha and Husrev Pasha is reported in Ibn al-Hanbalf 1:2, 585, who normally tends to limit himself to reporting events of local relevance. * Lala Mustafa Pasha’s (d. 1580) biography: EI’, s.v. “Mustafa Pasha, Lala,” by J..H. Kramers. He is well-known as the patron of the historian Gelibolulu Mustafa ‘Ali; he sponsored an extensive complex in Damascus in the 1560’s, see Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 79. Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 22. Lala Mustafa Pasha must be the brother named Mustafa who set up the two waqfiyyas summarized in Ghazzi after Husrev Pasha’s death. His own extensive waqf is in Erzurum (mosque completed 1563): Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 305, fig. 294. Lala Mustafa Pasha was married to the granddaughter of the last Mamlik Sultan, Qansauh al-Ghiurt.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 73

Khuban, daughter of Shadi Pasha.” Their son, Kard Bek, gave his name to one of the caravanserais in his father’s waqf in Aleppo.” Husrev Pasha’s career follows the typical pattern of the Ottoman élite: devsirme origin, education at the palace, distinction in battle, appointments throughout the empire, culminating in the vizierate

and return to the court. He traveled the length and width of the empire, and must have witnessed several architectural traditions. Husrev Pasha’s patronage comprised a mosque-madrasa in Diyarbakir which exhibits the strong influence of local building forms (1521-28),°? a late-Mamluk-style sabil-kuttab in Cairo (1535),°? and the very Ottoman Khusruwiyya in Aleppo (completed 1546).* His

mausoleum in Yeni Bahce, Istanbul, built by Sinan in 1545 conforms to central Ottoman practice.” Ulkii Bates offered two possible °° Her name is preserved in the Khusruwiyya’s endowment deed, which stipulated Koran readings in the mosque in her memory. VGM, Wagafiyya of Husrev Pasha, 150.

*' Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 22, n. 2. Husrev Pasha’s son Kird Bek is not to be confused with one of the sons of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, whose full name is Kurt Kasim Bek. The latter’s biography is in Streyya, Syill-2 ‘Osmdni, vol. 4, 63. Both Husrev Pasha and Sokol: Mehmed Pasha appear to have been devsirmes from the same village in Bosnia, Sokol, and may (EY’, s.v. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,” by Gilles Veinstein)

or may not (Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 22, n. 5) have beeen related by blood. *? Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 191; A. Gabriel, Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie

orientale (Paris, 1940), 200; Metin Sozen, Diyarbakir’da Tiirk Mimarisi (Ustanbul: Diyarbakir’) Tanitma ve Turizm Dernegi Yayinlari, 1971), 70-72, plan no. 20. Bates, “Facades,” 148, fig. 7; Raymond, “Activité architecturale,” 383, n. 10. * Apart from institutional complexes, Husrev Pasha also executed smaller projects: a reservoir in the al-Ajam quarter in Aleppo, al-Hanbali 1:2, 584. Along with his tomb in Istanbul, these are the only foundations set up by Divane Husrev Pasha.

Gaulmier states incorrectly that Husrev Pasha also built a mosque-madrasa in Sarajevo. The complex in Sarajevo (1532) was endowed by Husrev Beg, known as Gazi, 1480-1541: EL’, s.v. “Khosrew Beg”; Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 25, n. 22. Gaulmier was not alone in his confusion: in 1936, when the four hundreth anniversary of the Khusruwiyya was celebrated, the Yugoslavian government sent a delegation to attend the festivities, Gaulmier, 13, n. 5. For the Sarajevo complex, see: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 187. The two Husrevs are often confused with yet a third Husrev Pasha, known as Kose (“the sparsely-bearded”), fl. second half of the sixteenth century (Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 25-26, n. 23), the patron of the mosque-mausoleum of Husrev Pasha in Van (1567), Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 307-309. » Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 206; Aslanapa, Turkish Art, 227; Kuran, Sinan, 70,

fig. 45. Bacqué-Grammont, “Notes,” 55. Wolfgang Miiller-Wiener, Beldlextkon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion-Konstantinopolis-Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Fahrhunderts

(Tubingen: Ernst Wasmuth, 1977), 511; Husrev Tayla, “Mimar Sinan’in ‘Turbeler,” in Zeki S6nmez, ed. Mimar Sindén dénemi Tiirk mimarhgi ve sanati Istanbul: ‘Turkiye Is

Bankas: Yayinlani, 1988), 303-304, 331, fig. 35, 340, Photograph 3; E. H. Ayverdi, “Husrev Pasa Ttirbesi,” Istanbul Enstitiisi Dergist 1, 31-38; F. Kurdoglu, “Hadim Suleyman Pasanin mektuplar: ve Belgradin muhasara pilani,” Belleten 4:13 (1940): Pl. XVUJ and XIX.

74 CHAPTER THREE explanations for Husrev Pasha’s varied stylistic choices in the provinces.

First, the structures which recalled late Mamluk models were the work of local builders, while architects from Istanbul executed the “Ottoman” structures. This assumes that local builders always built in the “local” way. However, Bates’ own archival research does not bear out this assumption, as she has shown that in the Ottoman period artisans and specialists of building crafts moved from province to province to work on large commissions, which counters the notion of local practitioners maintaining local styles. It seems instead, that

specialists moved throughout the empire and were capable of executing any formal repertory a commission demanded. Her second explanation considers the patron’s political intention: The patron may have chosen the Mamluk style as a “local iconography in order _ to emphasize a continuity of rule with the conquered Mamluks.” This assumes a political climate where a link with the Mamluk state would be desirable for the Ottomans. However, the relationship of the Ottoman elite with the Mamluk past was complex. At the construction of the Khusruwiyya, the Ottomans were at the height of their power, and therefore could place an Rumi sign without need for direct reference to the Mamluks, whom they had eliminated from Aleppo some thirty years earlier. Conversely, how can one explain

the form of the Siileyman Pasha mosque, with its highly visible Ottoman minaret on Cairo’s citadel, where the Mamluks still ruled under Ottoman suzerainty? An underlying assumption of both hypotheses is that reproduced Mamluik forms referred expressly to the Mamlik dynasty. In fact, in 1521, or 1535, or 1546, what had been the Mamluk empire was now the Ottoman empire, and pre-1517 Mamluk buildings were now—literally—the domain of the Ottomans. They formed part and parcel of the urban fabric of provincial Ottoman cities. What appears to the architectural historian as a Mamlik-style mosque built by an Ottoman patron might have well appeared to a dweller of Cairo or

Aleppo in 1550 as a contemporary Ottoman mosque that recontextualized and reinterpreted older Mamluk forms. Furthermore, Aleppo’s example suggests that the answer to the issue of stylistic choice may partly he in the specific urban contexts of the structures, and in the deliberate spatial relationships they staged with buildings

°° Bates, “Facades,” 139.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 79

that were allowed to remain. When viewed both synchronically and diachronically, the patterns of use and of signification created by the Ottoman structures begin to emerge. The Khusruwiyya stood facing the citadel’s gate. The first large scale Ottoman official stamp on the city confronted the most dramatic existing monument from a previous dynasty. Alongside the spatial relationships created with the structures allowed to remain, the structures destroyed to make way for the Khusruwlyya render the choice of this site significant as well. ‘Two Aleppine observers recorded the demolition of buildings with socio-political functions and the dissolution of several waqfs. Al-Batrini (d. 1636) identified one of the demolished buildings as the Madrasa Asadiyya.°’ Ibn al-Hanbalf reported in addi-

tion, that workers demolished a house set up as waqf, along with the adjacent masjid Ibn ‘Antar.”° Beyond the takeover of waqfs, the placement of the complex at the edge of the empty space at the foot of the citadel redefined the contours of that large open space which had served as a public market in the Mamluk as well as Ottoman periods. Husrev Pasha had thus taken over a heavily used site facing the most imposing topographical

and architectural feature of the city.’ The citadel had been “Ottomanized” with Siileyman’s inscription of 1521. Now a larger section of the city was transformed. ‘The specific urban context allowed Husrev

Pasha, and by extension the central authority, to make visual connections to the past and to make a statement about the present by means

of an Ottoman-style building. The building of the Khusruwiyya necessitated an erasure of the city’s older fabric, and of its history; it also allowed the new rulers of the city to remake that history, and to set the stage for different types of associations and functions. Functions

Beyond the mosque’s form and siting, the process of “Ottomanization”’

extended to the functions it housed and fostered. ‘The great mosque

°»’ Tbn al-Shihna, ed. Al-Batriint, al-durr al-muntakhab, 119. The Madrasa Asadiyya

had been built by Asad al-Din Shirkih, and was also known as al-Tawashiyya. 8 Ibn al-Hanbali 1:2, 584—585. ”” The significance of this site, and of the visual interrelationships it created have been taken up only by Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 203, however he does not comment on the ideological significance of this spatial interrelationship.

76 CHAPTER THREE and the madrasa fulfilled the religious-social purposes of the kiilliye. In particular, the endowment deed stipulated that the Hanafi madh-

hab—the preferred madhhab of the Ottomans—be taught in the madrasa.*” The first professor at the madrasa, Dada Khalifa (d. 1565),

was an Ottoman rather than an Aleppine, and he became the first Rumi mufti of Aleppo.”' The choice of the support of a school of Hanafi law in a province where the Shaf‘t madhhab predominated was consistent with an empire-wide trend. The reign of Siileyman I was linked to the increased importance of legal institutions that trained bureaucrats, to the detriment of institutions which supported the Gazi sufi lifestyle, popular with previous Ottoman sultans. The Khusruwiyya then, besides being an architectonic sign of the newly canonical Ottoman way, also trained Ottoman subjects in the legal profession, which had newly reasserted itself as a crucial concern of the state. This trend did not endure in the city, however: no other Ottoman madrasa was to founded in Aleppo until the construction by of the Madrasa Sha‘bantyya in 1677. As a result, the Khusruwiyya

remained the preeminent Ottoman-Islamic learning center in the region. Training officials to staff the Sunni hierarchy of the city proved to be one of its enduring functions; 1t remains the most prestigious religious educational institution in Aleppo.” The presence of the tabhane rooms in the mosque raises the possibility that the Khusruwiyya also served as a dervish lodge; how-

ever, the absence of evidence in the endowment deeds or in the local narrative sources rules this out as an officially sponsored func-

tion.’ The Khusruwiyya supported the Islamic dimensions of the Ottoman empire in yet another way: a significant portion of its rev-

enues was earmarked for the aid of pilgrims on their way to the Two Noble Sanctuaries. ‘The endowment deed stipulates that the °° VGM, Waafiyya of Husrev Pasha, 149. *' Before his appointment at the Khusruwiyya Dada Khalifa taught at the Husrev Pasha madrasa in Diyarbakir. For biographies of Ibrahim b. Bakhshi, known as Dada Khalifa, see: Ibn al-Hanbali, 1:1, 90-93; ‘Tabbakh 2, VI, 72-73. See also Mantran and Sauvaget, Réglements fiscaux ottomans, 106; and D. Sourdel, “Les professeurs de madrasa a Alep aux XII°-XUI* siécles,” BHO 12 (1949-50): 85-115. *’ Gaulmier conducted a thorough study of the state of the madrasa in the late 1930’s, 18-27. °° The wagqfiyya I consulted makes no mention of a dervish lodge among its list of prescribed functions at the complex. Ghazzi, in his summary of a waqfiyya, lists

“takiyya” as one of the functions of the complex, Ghazzi 2, II, 93. There is no evidence in any of the sixteenth-century Aleppine narrative sources that a dervish lodge operated at the Khusruwiyya.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 7/

kitchen provide food to the students and staff of the complex, but also to hayis. In this manner, the complex supported another religious activity favored by the state: the supervision and facilitation of the Islamic pilgrimage.” The prominence at the Khusruwtyya of mercantile services, provided by the two caravanserais, Khan Qird Bak and Khan al-Shtna,

was destined to be a hallmark of official Ottoman patronage in Aleppo. Gommercial functions also reflect the persistence of the Mamluk-period use of this urban section. ‘The prominence of structures in the service of trade constituted the beginning of a trend that intensified in subsequent Ottoman commissions.

The ‘Adilyya Complex

The second Ottoman kiilliye of Aleppo, the Complex of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha of 963/1555-56, known as the ‘Adiliyya, is located

west of the Khusruwiyya, slightly south of the main commercial artery (Fig. 4, Pl. 14, 15, 16). Date and Patron

The waqfiyya of 1556 states that construction had been completed, constituting the most reliable date of the complex, confirmed by the

foundation inscription on the mosque dated 963/1555-1556.° | Nevertheless, several scholars dated it to 1517 and 973/1565—-66.°’ The ‘Adiliyya mosque figures on the list of Sinan’s projects and it

conforms to central Ottoman models. The patron, Dtkakinzade

** Guests on their way to the hajj were to receive two bowls of stew, two pieces of mutton and four pieces of bread daily. Rice pudding flavored with saffron was to be cooked every Friday night and every night of the month of Ramadan. VGM, Wadfiyya of Husrev Pasha, 150.

°° VGM, Waafiyya of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, Aleppo, Dht al-Hijja 963/October-November 1556, defter 607, pp. 1-3 (Henceforth VGM, Wagdfiyya of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha); Ghazzi’s summary has the same date and contains much of the information, Ghazzi 2, II, 89-92. The wagfiyya is in Arabic. © David stated that the incorrect 1517 date originated with Ghazzi, “Domaines,” 193, n. 9. However Ghazzi uses the correct date of 963/1555-56. The 1517 date is given in: Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 97, No. 63; Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 213. °” Kuran dated the mosque to 973/1565—-66, and one caravanserai to 963/1555-56, Sindn, 299-300, 66.

78 CHAPTER THREE Mehmed Pasha, the son of Dikakinzade Ahmed Pasha® and Gihar Malikshah,” served as beglerbesi of Aleppo from 1551 to 1553, when he began construction.”” He had completed two khans and the mosque

when the sultan appointed him beglerbegsi of Egypt (December 1553—March 1556).’' After his term ended he returned to Aleppo and built the remaining structures of the waqf including the Khan al-“Ulabiyya. He drew up the endowment deed of his complex before

his death in Rim in 964/1556—57. Mehmed Pasha’s endowment with its extensive commercial facilities

encouraged the long-distance trade. At the same time, it represented

an attempt by a Rumi official to use wagf to secure his family’s future as provincial notability. The endowment dedicated the usufruct

of the waqf to the maintenance of the complex, the stipends of employees, and the support of the patron’s family. The ‘Adiliyya’s endowment deed stipulates that the mutawalli (administrator) of the endowment must be a descendant of the patron, with a daily stipend of 50 silver dirhams, the highest salary.” The dirham was a unit of weight for silver, equivalent in this period to 3.207 grams.” Specifying the stipends in weight of silver rather than unit of currency ensured

that the employees would receive the same amount of silver in the event of the debasement of the currency. In addition, the document ensures a daily support of 20 silver dirhams for any elderly or indigent descendants of the patron.’* The stipends for the descendants were substantially higher than the other salaries of the wagf, as the highest daily stipend of an employee amounts to 5 dirhams for the khattb (preacher). ‘The prescriptions to the benefit of the family were

largely carried out, since the descendants of the waqif settled in Aleppo, in a handsome dar (mansion) in Sahat Biza, the same quar8 Ahmed Pasha was the ancestor of the Dikakinzade clan, Siireyya, Siill-1 ‘Osméni, vol. 4, 691. ® See the discussion of her mausoleum in Aleppo, Chapter 2.

These dates are mentioned only in Tabbakh 2, III, 202. Biographies of

Diikakinzade Mehmed Pasha appear in: Ibn al-Hanbali, 2:1, 263-265, “Muhammad [basha] b. Ahmad basha b. Tuqadin [sic]”; Stireyya, Szll-1 ‘Osmani, vol. 4, 114. "The dates of the governorate in Egypt: Stireyya, Szzll-2 ‘Osméni, op. cit. and vol. 4, 835.

” The mutawalli should be a male descendant of the patron. If none exist, a female descendant is to be appointed, and if none exists, a pious man should be appointed. VGM, Wagfiyya of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, 2. “ Tnalak and Quataert, 988. “ Both male and female descendants were entitled to this money. VGM, Wagfiyya of Dikakinzade Mehmed Pasha, 2-3.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 79

ter as their ancestor’s waqf. The identification of the family with the

waqf was such that the descendants of Mehmed Pasha in Aleppo were called ‘Adili rather than Dikakinzade.” While it is common for a patron to use the mechanism of the charitable endowment to secure an income for his descendants, it 1s of interest in this case that the provincial foundation contributed a solid economic basis in perpetuity, that allowed the descendants of the Rumi patron to evolve into a local notable family. This constitutes another example where the periphery was crucial for the center, and counters the commonly held notion that Ottoman patrons were exploiters with a short-term interest in provincial settings—in this case, the patron went to great lengths to ensure that his descendants would settle in Aleppo. Urban Context

Aleppines refer to the mosque of the complex as ‘Adiliyya because of its proximity at the time of construction to the Dar al-‘Adl or the Dar al-Sa‘ada, or seat of government.’® Ibn al-Hanbali recorded

previous buildings dismantled and integrated into the ‘Adiliyya complex: the mosque and the Khan al-Farra’in replaced the Suq al-

Zardakashiyya, and the Khan al-Nahhasin and the Sag Khan alNahhasin replaced the Sag al-Kharratin.’’ Since both of these sigs had been wagf property, the reuse of their sites required the legal dissolution of their endowments in addition to their physical demoition. The ‘Adiliyya complex also took over Tallat ‘A’isha (“the hill of ‘A’isha”), an open square in which the Mamluks practiced lancethrowing (lab al-rumh).’”” Open spaces within the urban core where military exercises were staged as a public spectacle were crucial for Ghazzi 2, Il, 107. Members of the family are buried in the garden of the ‘Adiliyya mosque, 90. Members of the family also maintain the mausoleum of their maternal ancestor, Gtihar Malikshah, 93. On the ‘Adili family see Tabbakh 2, HJ, 166-170. ” Ghazzi 2, II, 89. The waqfiyya uses the term “Dar al-Sa‘ada,” VGM, Diakakinzade Mehmed Pasha, |. Ibn al-Hanbali does not use the name ‘Adiliyya, but states that the new mosque was located in the vicinity of the Dar al-‘Adl, 2:1, 263. ‘This dar, built in the Mamluk period, continued to serve as seat of the administration in the Ottoman period. ” Tbn al-Hanbali, 2:1, 263-264. I have identified the structures by the names with which they are known today on the basis of Ibn al-Hanbali’s topographical

indications. -

® The term Tallat ‘A’isha is used in Ibn al-Hanbali, 2:1, 264, and the waqfiyya, VGM, Ditkakinzade Mehmed Pasha, 2. Ghazzi 2, II, 92, calls this site Funduq ‘A?isha, following the description of Aleppo by Ibn al-‘Adim (1192-1262).

50 CHAPTER THREE the training of Mamluk troops. They also supported the militaristic culture of the ruling group, as reflected in the extent of the literature on aspects of furiistyya, the art of horsemanship, and the specific terms devised for each type of exercise. Creating and maintaining such open spaces played an important role in the patronage of the Mamluk sultans.” By incorporating the square in his institutional complex, the Ottoman patron did not destroy any structures or dissolve any awgaf, but rather erased a space identified with the élite mulitary culture of the Mamluk state. The timing of the construction on the Tallat ‘A’isha may suggest a greater willingness to take over and remake sites associated with Mamluk rule in the second half of the sixteenth century. The takeover of these sites allowed the elements of the new complex to be contiguous. An exception was made for the Hammam al-Nahhasin, part of the waqf of the Khusruwlyya, which was now surrounded on three sides by components of the ‘Adiliyya complex. This suggests a conscious distinction between

Ottoman endowments and sites from previous periods. Ottoman sites were allowed to remain, even if they occasioned constraints for the layout of the new endowment. Functions

Commercial services predominated among the revenue-producing dependencies of the mosque. The ‘Adiliyya wagf, which comprised 3 hectares,*’ included four khans: Khan al-Nahhasin (“Caravanserai of the Coppersmiths”), Khan al-Farra’mIn (“of the Furriers”), Khan al-“Ulabiyya (the largest, “of the Box-Makers”), and the smaller Khan

al-‘Adiliyya. Its four sigs featured 157 shops: the Saq Khan alNahhasin, Sigq al-Juh, Suq al-‘Ulabiyya, Sag al-Farra’in, in addition to four qaysarlyyas: one unnamed, Qaysariyyat al-Farra’In, Qaysariyyat Stq al-‘Ulabiyya, Qaysariyyat al-‘Ulabiyya.*' The names are later, local appelations; the waqfiyya did not name any of the structures, not even the mosque but it clearly specified the location and function of each. " EP, s.v. “Furtsiyya—In the Mamluk State,” by D. Ayalon; idem, “Notes on the Furtsiyya exercises and games in the Mamluk Sultanate,” Scripta Hterosolymitana 9 (1961), 31-62. *° Raymond, “Grands wagfs,” 115.

*' Gaube and Wirth, 131, give a comprehensive analysis of the components of the wagf with their contemporary names and their location on their city plan, based on the summarized waqfiyya in Ghazzi.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 8]

Even though the commercial structures have been modified, repaired,

and adapted to modern use, the graceful proportions of the doublestory khans, the quality of the building materials, the solid vaulting of the sugs are unprecedented in Aleppo. Also remarkable is that

the ‘Adiliyya complex is compact and integrated. Thanks to the takeover of previously used sites, the ‘Adiliyya located all the income-

producing structures on adjacent plots. By contrast, in the case of the Khusruwiyya, in addition to income-generating properties outside Aleppo, the Hammam al-Sitt and the Khan Qurt Bak were separated from the main cluster. ‘The facilites provided by the commercial

structures of the ‘Adiliyya had an enormous impact on trade, and redefined the use of that urban quarter. Memories of the days of the Mamluks practicing lance-throwing and playing polo faded in favor of a growing economic role. While the Khusruwiyya combined religious and commercial functions (mosque, madrasa, as well as caravanserais), the ‘Adiliyya’s religious role was limited to the mosque, while all other components served commercial interests. form and Siting of the Mosque

The religious focus of the endowment, the mosque, follows that of the Khusruwiyya in reproducing the canonical Ottoman format. A dome surmounting a cube constitutes the prayer hall, decorated with such Ottoman features as windows set in vaulted alcoves and crowned

by bands of polychrome underglaze tiles, calligraphic discs on the spandrels of the pendentive arches and the concentration of ornament on the mihrab and minbar. The dome of the ‘Adiliyya is the only sixteenth-century dome in Aleppo to have retained its original sheath of lead tiles.®

The most graceful and elegantly proportioned Ottoman minaret in Aleppo rises from the western corner of the mosque. An original lead-tile-covered cone caps a faceted shaft adorned with a balcony. A joggled crested stringcourse, identical to that at the base of the Khusruwiyya minaret, rings the shaft. A double portico precedes the prayer hall. As in the Khusruwiyya, the portico is wider than the prayer hall. The arches of the inner portico rest on a podium. Four windows and two mugqarnas niches articulate the facade of the prayer

* Evliya praised the lead-covered dome, and the interior filled with light, Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 375.

82 CHAPTER THREE hall. ‘Tile tympana featuring floral ornamentation and inscription car-

touches surmount the windows, in the Ottoman way. Five domes top the inner portico while a flat roof covers the outer portico, which wraps around the inner one. The inner portico features six columns, and the outer one eighteen, placed closer together. Muqarnas cap-

itals top all the columns. While the double portico occurs in the Sulaymaniyya in Damascus, it is an unusual feature, and the outer colonnade at the ‘Adiliyya may be a later addition.” An arched ablag frame jutting out of the facade showcases the central bay of the portico and the entrance to the prayer hall. ‘This frame contains a muqarnas hood, a rectangular inscription plaque naming the patron and the date (963/1555—-1556), and a delicate door frame of crested joggled voussoirs (the cresting recalls the string-

course on the minaret). The wooden door displays elaborate marquetry. Its strap hinges bear an inscription naming two craftsmen from the Bilad al-Sham.** On this central bay the encounter between imperial and local actors is literally made legible. Descendants of Mehmed Pasha were buried in a garden-cemetery behind the mosque.® None of the subsidiary structures of the waqf open onto the mosque courtyard; some such as the Qaysariyyat al‘Ulabiyya have windows that overlook it. The mosque with its courtyard and garden stand as a self-contained unit within the institutional ensemble.

In form, then, the mosque follows the central Ottoman format: it

features a facade graced by a hemispherical dome, minaret and inscription plaque. However, despite this “canonical” front, the spatial arrangement prevents the customary axial approach from the north. ‘The mosque’s two entrances lead into the courtyard from the east and the west respectively, neither provides an axial approach. Modest doors devoid of inscriptions open inconspicuously onto the

street and lead to the mosque via corridors sandwiched between buildings.*° The more distinguished eastern entrance consists of a *§ David, “Domaines,” 182. The double portico of Takiyya Sulaymaniyya in Damascus (1555-59) is original. Goodwin, Oltoman Architecture, 213, who assumes incorrectly that the ‘Adiliyya mosque was built in 1517, speculates that the outer portico of the ‘Adiliyya may have influenced Sinan’s design of the double portico of the Mosque of Mihr-1 Mah Sultan in Usktidar, Istanbul (1562-65). ** The inscriptions are discussed in Chapter 1.

® Ghazzi 2, II, 90. -

°° The plaque above the eastern entrance which reads “Jami‘ al-‘Adiliyya” is modern. There do not seem to have been original inscriptions on the doorways. The entrances feature an Ottoman-period format similar to those found at the khans

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 83

metal door under a trilobed arch with two stone benches at the base, set within the high enclosure wall of the complex (PI. 16). A pedestrian walking on the street to the south of the ‘Adiliyya would have had (and has) difficulty noticing the mosque, or catching a glimpse of it through an open door. The dome and the minaret are barely visible, hidden by the high walls of the garden, and by the structures around the mosque, including several from its own waqf, such as the Qaysartyyat al-“Ulabryya and the Khan al-‘Ulabiyya.

While the mosque retreats from the street, the other elements of the waqf spill onto it: the four stiqgs are, in fact, vaulted thoroughfares. Unlike the Khusruwiyya, then, the ‘Adiliyya Mosque does not have a monumental presence on the street. ‘There is no architectural event: no imposing profile, no visibly staged visual relationships with sur-

rounding buildings. This seems to run counter to the prescribed choreography of the use of an Ottoman-style mosque. An architectonic clue suggests a reason for this peculiar choice. The ‘Adiliyya mosque is raised on a podium like the Khusruwiyya; in addition, however, the entire mosque enclosure including the garden and the courtyard rise above the street level. Gonsequently, both entrances utilize stairs to lead up to the mosque. In the absence of shops or any other apparent use for the space created by this height, one must search a compelling reason for this elevation beyond the immediate surrounding. The mosque is raised to ensure the visibility of its crucial aspects—the minaret and distinctive dome—on the skyline. Indeed, seen from certain points of view on the citadel, or from outside the city, looking east from Antioch Gate, the minaret of the ‘Adiliyya appears prominent, contributing to the creation of the new Ottoman image of Aleppo. The silhouette of the mosque was not legible to the pedestrian, but it was designed to be legible from other privileged points of view.

The Bahramiyya Complex

The Complex of Behram Pasha or Bahramiyya of 991/1583 presents a simular combination of an Ottoman-style mosque with commercial of Aleppo. Doors consist of of a skin of metal wrapped around a wooden core, held together with iron nails, which often create ornamental designs on the surface. A smaller door, about one meter in height, is set within the right panel of the larger double-door, and can be opened independently.

84 CHAPTER THREE institutions (Fig. 5, Pl. 17, 18). ‘The mosque conforms to the style associated with imperial structures, while the qaysariyyas and khans follow local building conventions. Patron

Behram Pasha’s father, Kara Shahin Mustafa Pasha (d. 1564), was a Bosnian recruited through the devsirme, who served as governor of Yemen (1556-1560).°’ Behram Pasha held the beglerbegilik of Yemen and of Diyarbakir, as well as Aleppo in 1580. In Diyarbakir he built a mosque complex dated by inscription to 980/1572—-73 and attributed to Sinan.*” The mosque consists of a domed cube

preceded by a double portico and surmounted by an Ottoman minaret. Its facade features the regional ornamentation of horizontal bands of polychrome masonry, or ablag. Both Behram Pasha and his brother Ridwan Pasha, who also served as beglerbegi of Aleppo, were buried in this city after their deaths in 1585 and in 1586 respectively.” The wagqfiyya, dated 1583, composed in Arabic by the distinguished Aleppine legal scholar ‘Taj al-Din al-Kutrani, is unusually

elegant.”' One copy of the waqfiyya, a long scroll of high-quality paper, caligraphed with a clear hand in black ink preserved in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul, seems to be a “presentation copy.””

’ EI s.v. “Mustafa Pasha, Kara Shahin,” by J. R. Blackburn. The Aleppine sources give his father’s name as Mustafa basha b. ‘Abd al-Mu‘in. "’ "The date of his governorate of Aleppo is given in Tabbakh 2, III, 175, and in the Sandme 1908, 80. Other sources indicate that on 19 Safar 898/25 March 1581, Ahmed Pasha b. Gerkes Ikender Pasha replaced “an aged Ahmed” as governor of Aleppo: Istanbul, BBA, Kamil Kepeci Tasnifi 238, Ru’us Defterleri, p. 308, cited in Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 90, n. 53. ® Islam Anstklopedist, s.v. “Behram Pasa Camii,” by Ara Altun, includes a groundplan; Gabriel, Voyages archéologiques, 310; Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 310, calls it Mosque of “Bayram Pasha” [sic]; Metin S6zen, Dzyarbakir’da Tiirk Mimansi (Istanbul,

1971), 86-91. Kuran, Sinan, 103-104. ”” Tabbakh 2, II, 175. Ridwan Pasha was governor of Aleppo in 1585, Sdalndme 1908, 80. "' For a history of the al-Kirani family see Tabbakh 2, vol. 6, 237-252. ” Istanbul, Basbakanhk Argivi (Prime Ministry Archives), Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 991/1583, Aleppo. This is the only wagqfiyya in Aleppo preserved in this archive. A conventionally presented copy of the document is preserved in VGM, Ankara, Waqfiyya of Behram Pasha, 991/1583, Aleppo, Defter 588, pp. 139-146, — sira no. Ol.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 85 Urban Context

The Bahramiyya’s constituent units are located on both sides of the main commercial artery of the Mdineh. The mosque, in retreat from the thoroughfare, sits at the southern end of a spacious courtyard. The waqfiyya emphasizes the dimensions of the courtyard: 29 cubits (dhira‘) from north to south, and 50 cubits from east to west,’ probably because securing this space was difficult in an area dedicated primarily to commerce where property values were high. Unlike the internal courtyards of caravanserais, integral to their commercial function, the courtyard of a mosque could at most hold temporary vendors outside prayer hours. While the mosque is shielded from the view of pedestrians in the bazaar, the complex, nonetheless, has an prominent presence in it. The section of the main commercial artery to the North of the Bahramiyya mosque is lined on both sides by sugs belonging to the endowment vaulted and lned with shops along approximately 50 meters.** The monumental entrances of both sugqs align with each other and with the central axis of the mosque. The meeting point of the two suq entrances is emphasized by three domes, staging the approach to the mosque.

The fagade of the southern sug through which one enters the mosque courtyard is particularly elaborate. A sabil or drinking foun-

tain on this wall provides a much-needed service and ensures that some pedestrians will stop at that precise location.” A thick band of yellow marble carved with geometric ornament frames the entrance leading into the courtyard. Such bands appear on the facades of late Mamlik caravanserais, like the Khan al-Sabin and the Khan Ujkhan (see Chapter 2). A pointed arch with black and white voussoirs sits within this band. Underneath it, a black stone band frames a plain rectangle, which may have originally held an inscription.*”® A segmented arch whose ablaq voussoirs create a positive-negative design in a trefoil crested shape surmounts the recessed door.

”» VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 140, Ghazzi 2, I, 41.

David, “Domaines,” 184. »” The sabil is listed in Ghazzi 2, II, 64. ”° This rectangle seems to retain traces of an ornament, perhaps an inscription. In comparison, the fagade of the Khan al-Gumruk on the main thoroughare does bear an inscription. A plain band where one would expect to find an inscription can also be seen at the Khan al-Wazir, discussed in Chapter 5.

86 CHAPTER THREE Mosque

Through this door on the bazaar one enters the courtyard. Originally an elaborate water basin (hawd) of yellow marble covered by a domed baldachin occupied the middle of the courtyard, supplied by water from the canals of Aleppo.”’ A modest pool with faucets for ablution replaced it in 1882, slightly east of the axis of symmetry.” David characterized the mosque as a “bastard” structure, ambitious yet awkward.” However, the vicissitudes suffered by the building and infelicitous renovations, rather than the design contribute to the impression of awkwardness. Evliya described the original minaret as the most beautiful in Aleppo.'”’ The minaret collapsed during an earth-

quake in 1699, damaging the western section of the portico, and was rebuilt in the early eighteenth century.'*' As in the other Ottoman

towers of Aleppo, the restored minaret 1s topped by a cone, has a balcony, and features once again the joggled crested stringcourse. Probably modified at the same time as the minaret, the portico 1s once again wider than the prayer hall. ‘The three Eastern arches seem original, supported by three original columns with muqarnas hoods. Stone pillars support the remaining arches. ‘The nine pointed arches

are of unequal size, echoing the differing widths of the bays. ‘The farthest arches to the east and the west are smallest, and the second arches on either side are largest. ‘The largest arches lead to large bays, actually zwwans (three-sided room) abutting the prayer hall. Two windows in each overlook the garden-cemetery behind the mosque.'”

The western 1wan is smaller than the eastern one. The facade of the mosque thus reads, from east to west: corner, window, larger Iwan, niche, window, entrance, window, niche, smaller 1wan, corner. David considered the wéans an Aleppine feature, comparing them *’ VGM, Wadfiyya of Behram Pasha, 140, Ghazzi 2, II, 41. The employee in charge of ensuring the flow of water to this basin was appointed a daily stipend of 1 silver ‘uthmanwya. VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 144; Ghazzi 2, II, 43. "8 Ghazzi 2, II, 44. *? David, “Domaines,” 184. 0 Evlya visited Aleppo in 1082/1671—72, when the original minaret was extant, Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 375.

'' "The renovation of the minaret was celebrated with an inscription above the door at the minaret’s base (the portico was probably also built at this time), compose Py ihe poet Yahya al-Halabi al-‘Aqqad, quoted in Ghazzi 2, I, 44. Tabbakh “102 "The waafiyya states that each iwan has a mihrab, offering no functional explana-

tion for these zwdns, except that the minaret was accessible from the western iwan.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 87

to the larger iwans at the Madrasa ‘Uthmaniyya in Aleppo (1730-38). The waqfiyya offers no functional explanation for their presence. At the Bahramiyya the two zwédns which face the courtyard are balanced by two small mwdans inside the prayer hall, each with a window on the facade. Again, the western interior zwdn 1s smaller than the eastern one, an indication that the mosque is not arranged in exact symmetry. The four wwdédns also appear at the ‘“Uthmaniyya, however the interior zwdns are smaller than the exterior ones, and they are symmetrical. Apart from the Bahramiyya and the ‘Uthmaniyya, there is

no other example of the system of interior and exterior wdns. In the Mosque of Iskender Pasha in Diyarbakir (1551),'°? no wans grace

the interior while on the exterior, rather than wdans, rectangular chambers open onto the portico, without communicating with the prayer hall. hey mediate between the zwdans of the Bahramiyya and

the “vestigial tabhane rooms” of the Khusruwtyya, which opened into the prayer hall. Thus the peculiar feature of the intenor and exterior zwdns in the same depth may be unique to the Bahramiuyya. Apart from this peculiar feature, the original fagade of the mosque

conformed to the central Ottoman model. The portico stands on a low podium, interrupted in front of the central bay, framed by a projecting pointed arch with ablag decoration. Within it a smaller arch contains a plaque bearing the foundation inscription. Another arch, identical to the one on the door between the bazaar and the mosque courtyard, surmounts the door. The decoration emphasizes the importance of the central bay and the relationship of entrances placed along the axis of the complex. Polychrome underglaze tiles surmount the recessed windows of the prayer hall. Having collapsed during the 1821 earthquake, the dome was rebuilt on four massive pillars.'°* According to the waqfiyya, the

original dome rested on eight arches,’ covering a space of 324 square meters.'°° This means that the Bahramiyya featured the largest prayer hall of the Ottoman mosques of Aleppo, as the original dome 03 David illustrates the Mosque of Iskender Pasha in Diyarbalur (1551), attributed to Sinan, but does not discuss it. See: Groundplan: David, ““Domaines,” 183. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 310.

'+ After the structure stood in ruins for about forty years, a resourceful mutawalli

sold the lead which had covered the original dome to raise funds for a new one, Tabbakh 2, Hl, 175. Evlya noted that the original dome was covered with lead, Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 375.

‘ VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 139; Ghazzi 2, UJ, 41. '% David, “Domaines,” 185.

88 CHAPTER THREE of the Khusruwiyya covered a hall of 290 square meters, and that of the “Adiliyya covered 255 square meters. Any one of the Ottoman domes dwarfed the older domes in the city.'°’

Another feature particular to the Bahramiyya is the large fivesided apse, which the waqfiyya termed an zwan.'*? The apse, which prolongs the north-south axis of the mosque, contains a mihrab niche on its south wall and four engaged columns. ‘The five-sided apse 1s not common in Ottoman architecture. An example close in date to

the Bahramiyya is the Yeni Gami in Tosya (1574), where a fivesided apse containing a mihrab is surmounted by a half-dome on squinches.'” Goodwin interpreted the five-sided apse as a Byzantine feature, Incorporated in Ottoman architecture after the conquest of Istanbul as for example in the David Pasha Mosque of 1485, that remained within the repertoire of the Ottoman mosque throughout the Classical period.''? However, a rectangular apse surmounted by a semi-dome appears to be a more usual choice. Perhaps one can distinguish between the five-sided apse based on Byzantine models, and the rectangular apse, which may be a logical result of the modular system of design in Ottoman architecture. Examples of rectangular apses closest to the Bahramtyya are found in the Selimiye

Mosque (1569-75) in Edirne,''' and in Istanbul, the Mosque of Sokol Mehmed Pasha in Azapkapi (1577—78),''? the Mosque of Kuihc¢ 7 The dome of the eighteenth-century Madrasa ‘Uthmaniyya, also built in central Ottoman style, covered a prayer hall of 144 square meters. David, “Domaines,” 185. 108“... an Iwan supported by five small arches on columns...” VGM, Wagqfiyya of Behram Pasha, 140; Ghazzr 2, II, 42.

' It is difficult to know if the apse of the Bahramiyya was originally covered by a half-dome. The Yeni Cami seems to be a variation, in plan, of the Istanbul Shehzade Mosque by Sinan. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 310-311. ''? On the Mosque of David Pasha in Istanbul, see Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture,

115, groundplan fig. 107. David observes that the five-sided apse occurs in preOttoman mosques and madrasas of Anatolia, as well as in Ottoman-period structures in an archaic style in Eastern Anatolia. He compares the Bahramiyya to the Mosque of David Pasha and the Yeni Cami, following Goodwin. He also brings up comparisons from the late sixteenth century, however, the apse of the Mosque of Nishanji Mehmed Pasha in Karagtimriik, Istanbul (1584-1588) is not octagonal as he states, but rather rectangular; the Mosque of Sokolli Mehmed Pasha in Kadirga Limani, Istanbul of 1571 has no apse at all, but the Mosque of the same patron in Azapkap, Istanbul (985/1577—78) has a rectangular apse; the apse of the Mosque of ‘Atik Valide (991/1583) in Toptasi, Istanbul is not hexagonal, rather it is rectangular. David, ““Domaines,” 193, note 12. ‘’ Groundplan: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 262, fig. 250. Kafescioglu, “Aleppo and Damascus,” 86, considers the Selimiye the likely inspiration for the Bahramiyya apse.

‘2 Groundplan: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 286, fig. 274.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 89

‘Ali Pasha in Tophane (1580-81),''’ the Mosque of ‘Atik V4lide (1583) in Toptasi,'’* and the Mosque of Nishanji Mehmed Pasha in Karagiimriik, Istanbul (1584—1588).' While Ottoman architecture rarely employed the five-sided apse, several occur in Diyarbakir, the nearest major city. The earliest fivesided apse, surmounted by a half-dome, occurs in the 1489 mosque known as the Ayni Minare Camu or the Hoca Ahmet Gamu,''® which predates the Ottoman conquest of Diyarbakir of 1515. ‘The MosqueMadrasa of Divane Husrev Pasa (1521-1528) located nearby, mirrors the groundplan of the Ayni Minare Mosque, including the five-sided apse, except that a hemispherical dome in the Ottoman manner surmounts the prayer hall. Another identical apse contains the mihrab of the Madrasa of ‘Ali Pasha (1537-1543), which has no domed prayer

hall.''’ Attributed to Sinan, this madrasa is located near the previous two mosques, along the ramparts between the Mardin Gate and the Urta Gate. The Ottoman apses in Diyarbakir imitate forms that belong to the past of Diyarbakir in a specific section of the city. ‘The practice of acknowledging the association of certain formal practices with specific locations by Ottoman builders can also be discerned in Aleppo in regards to the late Mamluk visual style. In the case of the unusual

feature of the apse, because of their proximity in time and space, the Diyarbakir examples may have influenced the Bahramuiyya.

The ornamentation of the mihrab and minbar recall the format commonly used in Aleppo for these elements, and employ high qual-

ity materials.''? Polychrome marble mosaic graces the mihrab. Its complex interlace of masonry is strikingly similar to the famous Ayyubid-period mihrab of the Madrasa al-Firdaws (1235).''? The white marble minbar features polychrome geometric marble mosaic. Once again, then, the combination of an Ottoman-style mosque with a decorative scheme that quotes local examples 1s in evidence. ''S Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 287-288; groundplan: Kuran, Sinan, 217, fig. 226.

''® Groundplan: Kuran, Sian, 194, fig. 202. ''? Groundplan: Kuran, Siman, 235, figs. 253, 254. ''8 Sézen, Diyarbakir, 52-54, groundplan: 53, fig. 13. ''7 Sozen, Diyarbakir, 148-150, groundplan: 149, fig. 43. ''8 "The waqfiyya described the mihrab and minbar, VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 140 and Ghazzi 2, II, 42. '' Sauvaget emphasized this similarity, “Inventaire,” 99, No. 65. For the mihrab of the Firdaws, see most recently Tabbaa, Constructions of Power, 169, and fig. 200;

and idem, “Dayfa Khatun, Regent Queen and Architectural Patron,” in Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies, ed. D. Fairchild Ruggles (Albany:

State University of New York Press, 2000), 17-34.

90 CHAPTER THREE The Bahramiyya mosque, like the ‘Adiliyya mosque, is barely visible to the pedestrian from the street. The elaborate entrance on the thoroughfare signals its presence; however the mosque can only be glimpsed from the bazaar, the open courtyard a blinding surface of hight contrasting with the constant semi-darkness of the covered market. Like the ‘Adiliyya, however, the mosque of the Bahramiyya 1s visible on the skyline of the city, perfectly aligned with the Ottoman minarets of the Mdineh.

The mosque enclosure has three entrances, to the north, on the north-south axis and with an elaborate entrance on the bazaar, and two less distinguished doors to the east and the west.'”” In a pattern sumular to the Khusruwiyya and the ‘Adiliyya, the charitable functions of the endowment, the mosque and the maktab (Koranic school) occupy the mosque enclosure along with subordinate buildings, while the revenue-producing structures lie beyond. Apart from the mausoleum to the south, where the patron and his brother Ridwan Pasha are buried,'*' rebuilt in 1924,'*? the courtyard contains two structures including a lavatory which have been heavily rebuilt.'*? The waqfiyya described a latrine and a maktad in their location. The latrine (tahhara),'** was unusually elaborate, with a tiled floor

and equipped with running water.’ As for the maktab, the endowment stipulated that it provide for the education of orphans who would receive a new shirt and a new skullcap (‘arraqiyya) every year.'”°

°° The Western entrance was walled up at an unknown date. Ghazzi 2, I, 44. '2' According to the patron’s wishes expressed in the endowment deed, VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 145; Ghazzi 2, II, 44. 2 Tt was rebuilt by ‘Abdallah Bak al-‘IImi, the mutawalli, a descendant of Behram

Pasha, Tabbakh 2, UI, 176. He also renovated a latrine to the east of the mosque where he installed running hot water, the first in a public place in the city. '23 In addition, David observed traces of an arcade on the north side of the courtyard, “Domaines,” 185. No such arcade is described in the wagqfiyya. '* Both waqfiyyas used this term, however Ghazzi used the term mathara, which derives from the same Arabic root. For a discussion of historic latrines in Aleppo, which does not include any Ottoman-period ones, see Gaube and Wirth, 157. ‘> "The waqfiyya specified a location to the west of the mosque, bounded by the latrines of the Madrasa Muqaddamiyya (1124) to the west, and by the Muqaddamiyya

itself to the south. There is no trace of it today. A new latrine was built in 1924, Tabbakh 2, III, 176. '° The waqfiyya stated that the maktab was near the west door of the mosque VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 142; Ghazzi 2, Il, 43. The children were to be educated by a teacher with a daily stipend of 3 silver ‘uthmantyyas, VGM, Waaqfiyya of Behram Pasha, 143; Ghazzi 2, H, 43.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 9] Revenue-Producing Buildings

Among the revenue-producing institutions of the endowment were the two sugs located on either side of the bazaar artery, to the north of the mosque enclosure.'*’ The stiq to the south of the main thoroughfare contained seventeen shops according to the wagfiyya. ‘The northern suq'*® contained a total of 24 shops, and a qaysariyya of 37 rooms occupied its second story.'* Also on the second story of the northern stq was a domed coffeehouse.'*” The wagqf capitalized on its location in the heart of the market, with buildings for prayer, study, as well as commerce and entertainment, including the drinking of a newly popular social beverage.'*! In addition, a beautiful hammadm (public bath) with a qaysariyya on its second story was constructed in the Judayda quarter to the northwest of the walled city, where no Ottoman public buildings had hitherto been built. Alternating stripes of limestone and basalt reminiscent of Mamluk architecture decorate its facade on the street. In its fagade as well as in the system of water circulation, the hammam followed older Aleppine models.'** The wagqfiyya praised the hammam’s door ornamented with colored marble, its tiled floors, its pool of yel-

low marble, and its three spacious rooms.'** Its location in Judayda suggests that by 1583, available space was limited in the Mdineh, forcing patrons out.’** However, the Judayda quarter offered both land

and commercial possibilities in its own right, as a major secondary center of artisanal industry and trade. The largest Ottoman wadf of “7 Sauvaget published a groundplan of these two suqs, in Alep, 216, fig. 55. The city plan in Gaube and Wirth more fatihfully reflects its contemporary state.

8 The Northern sug (Gaube and Wirth No. 40) is adjacent to the Masjid al‘Umari (Gaube and Wirth No. 41) on its Northeastern corner. Gaube and Wirth state incorrectly that the ‘Umari Mosque was part of the 1583 waqfiyya of the Bahramiyya, 349. Its date is unknown, Ghazzi 2, IJ, 61. 2° VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 141, Ghazzi 2, II, 42. "2 VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 141, Ghazzi 2, Hl, 43 and 67. ’' For a discussion of the urban coffeehouse, see Chapter 4. 2 David, “Domaines,” 184. VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 141. Ghazzi’s summary of the waqfiyya does not include these descriptions. For a groundplan: David and Hubert, “Déperisse-

ment du hammam,” 64, fig. 65, and David, Wagf d’lIpstr Pasa, Plate 30. See also Gaube and Wirth No. 446; Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 112, no. 117. This hammam is included in Tabbakh’s list of Aleppo’s baths in 1923, Tabbakh 2, III, 433. The hammam-qaysariyya underwent modifications: a coffeehouse was built on its western side, shops were added to the bottom floor and added to the waqf in 1890, Ghazzzi,

2, I, 44.

+ Raymond, “Grands wadfs,” 116.

92 CHAPTER THREE seventeenth century, that of Ipshir Pasha, located to the north of the hammam of Behram Pasha, capitalized on this economic opportunity (see chapter 4). The endowment also included rural properties, including a mull on the Quwayq river to the west of Aleppo (an area prominent in the Wadqt of Sokol Mehmed Pasha discussed below), three rooms for rent and a mill on the river Jallab in the Qada’ of Raha, olive trees and fruit orchards in villages of Gaza. In Cairo, the patron created a cluster of income-producing structures that echoes those in Aleppo: a hammam, a coffeehouse and shops in the Suq al-Sibahi, near the Mosque of Sultan Hasan.'*° Functions

The waqfiyya appointed the patron as waqf administrator for the duration of his lifetime, at a daily stipend of 25 silver ‘uthmaniyya tstanbilt.'”°

At his death, the waqfiyya specified that the position of admuinistra-

tor was reserved for the patron’s male children and their descendants, then to their manumitted slaves, then to the manumitted slaves of his brother Ridwan Pasha, and then to those of his father Mustafa Pasha.'*’ Apart from the stipend, any income left over after the waqf’s requisite expenses also belonged to the mutawalk, who supervised the finances of the waqf without interference from any qdadi (judge).'”®

As in the case of the descendants of Mehmed Pasha Dikakinzade, the waqf enabled the families of Behram Pasha and his brother to settle in Aleppo, where they adopted the patronymic of ‘Imi. The wagqfiyya of the Bahramiyya outlined custodial positions at the mosque, including sweepers, a bawwab or doorman, a lavatory ~ VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 142. Ghazzi 2, II, 43. © VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 142, Ghazzt does not mention this. It is unclear what type of currency is meant by ““uthma@niyya istanbuli.” The Ottoman silver coin akce was often called an “‘uthmani” in the Arab provinces, Inalcik and Quataert, 1001. However, “‘uthmani” was also the name given to a ten-akcge piece minted in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Sevket Pamuk, “Money in the Ottoman Empire, 1326-1914”, in Inalcik and Quataert, 976, n. 7. See also Anton C. Schaendlinger, Osmanische Numismatk (Braunschweig, 1973).

7 VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 144, Ghazzi 2, II, 44; Until the 1920’s the tawhya remained at the hands of the descendants of Behram Pasha, who had taken the patronymic of ‘Ilmi, Tabbakh 2, HI, 176.

8 VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha, 143, Ghazzi 2, II, 44. The wagfiyya enjoined the mutawalli to record the finances of the wagf in a notebook, VGM, Wagfiyya of Behram Pasha, 145.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 93

attendant, and persons in charge of the water supply to the ablution fountain and the tahhara. The endowment also earmarked sums for the purchase of specified amounts of oil, oil lamps, candles, and incense. Ihe interior and the exterior of the mosque, as well as the tahhara were to be lit during Ramadan.'°” In addition, the endowment deed prescribed regular and special religious services at the mosque. ‘The wagqfiyya specified the verses of the Koran to be read during certain times and days of the week, as well as the special readings for festival nights in the year,'*’ to

which prayers for the soul of the Prophet and the patron were to be appended daily.'*! The khatib or preacher was to be a Hanafi. The mosque’s two imams were to be a Hanafi and a Shafi‘l. The mandated legal affiliations of these officials provide an insight into the intentions of the waqif. He ensured that while Aleppines at this mosque could pray behind imams of two madhhabs, the khutba— the sermon which addressed the congregation on Friday, and where

allegience to the ruler was proclaimed—would be entrusted to a Hanafi, the madhhab endorsed by the Ottomans. This long list of prescriptions pursued three principal aims. First, the upkeep and cleanliness of the mosque and its enclosure, and the constant supply of running water to the latrines ensured the comfort of the congregation, to a degree expected from a great imperial wadf. Second, the choice of a Hanafi for a khatib supported the madhhab endorsed by the Ottomans. Third, the performance of religious services such as the call to prayer, the five prayers, readings before and after prayer and in the evenings, and the marking of special days in the religious calendars made certain that the mosque would be “active” throughout the entire day and during holidays.'*’ In the heart of the

marketplace, the mosque thus provided a communal environment where Muslim merchants and visitors could pray, listen to the Koran and socialize. ‘The nearby coffeehouse created an additional social space where friendships and business partnerships could develop.

VGM, Waafiyya of Behram Pasha 143-144, Ghazzr 2, I, 43-44. For Ramadan,

in rae to the lamps, two giant candles are to be lit on either side of the mihrab. Ml VGM, Waaqfiyya of Behram Pasha, 143.

' Because of its proximity, the call to prayer, and even some of the readings at the Bahramiyya could be heard by those passing through the market.

94 CHAPTER THREE The Complex of the Khan al-Gumruk Patron

The patron of Complex of the Khan al-Gumruk was Sokolls Mehmed Pasha, one of the most important Ottoman statesmen of the the six-

teenth century, whose assassination in 1579 marks the end of the “Classical Age.”'*? Three pieces of information support this attribution. First, Ghazzi indicated that the recto of first page of the waqfiyya conserved in Aleppo bore “the tugra of the Sultan Muhammad son of the Sultan Ibrahim Khan.”'** The wagqf is known in Aleppo, presumably on the basis of this tugra, as “the waqf of Ibrahim Khan.” This tugra can only belong to Sultan Mehmed IV (r. 1648-87), son

of Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640-48), who cannot be the patron, however, as the waqfiyya is dated Jumada I 982/September 1574. Either

the tugra was added to the original waqfiyya at a later date, or Ghazzi saw a seventeenth-century copy of the document, endorsed by Mehmed IV. Yet another possibility suggests that the tugra Ghazzi

saw was in fact the seal of the Ibrahim Han Zade family. Ibrahim Han was the son of Sokolh Mehmed Pasha and Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Selim II.'* Mehmed Pasha’s descendants, known as the Ibrahim Han Zade, constituted one of the most privileged families of the Ottoman empire.'*® This possibility supports the identification of the waqf with Sokol Mehmed Pasha, the progenitor of the [brahim Han Zade family, even though Sokoll himself does not seem to have ever been referred to as “Ibrahim Han Zade.”'*’ ‘The name is spelled Sokollu in modern Turkish. David suggested Sokol as the patron of this complex in “Domaines,” 183, and in idem., “Le consulat de France a Alep sous Louis XIV. ‘Témoins architecturaux, descriptions par les consuls et les voyageurs,” Res Onentales 8 (1996), 13, but without providing any support.

™ Ghazzi 2, II, 416. “= Sokol and Ismihan (1545-1585, also known as “Esma Sultan”) were married in 969/1561-62. EI’, s.v. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,” by Gilles Veinstein. Their son Ibrahim Han was born in 1565, Artan, “Kadirga Palace,” 80. “© For the Ibrahim Han Zade family see Stireyya, Syzll-1 ‘Osman, vol. 4, 679; EP, s.v. “Ibrahim Khan,” by J. H. Mordtmann; slam Ansiklopedisi, s.v. “Ibrahim Han,” by T. Gokbilgin; Artan, “Kadirga Palace,” 79-84. The genealogy of the family is studied in Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Hans-Peter Laqueur, and Nicolas Vatin, Stelae Turcicae IT: Cimetiéres de la mosquée de Sokollu Mehmed Pasa a Kadirga Limana,

de Bostanc. Ali et du ttirbe de Sokollu Mehmed Pasa a Eyiip, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft XXXVI (Tubingen: E. Wasmuth, 1990). “7 David, uses this family name to refer to him in “Consulat de France,” 13. However, “Ibrahim Han Zade” was the patronymic of the descendants of Sokolli’s son Ibrahim Han, not of Sokolli himself.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 95

Second, the waqfiyya summarized by Ghazzi names the waqif as Muhammad basha ibn Jamal al-Din Sinan, which is consistent with the name taken by Sokolh’s father upon conversion to Islam.'*? Third, the extensive complex at Payas mentioned in the wagqfiyya can only

be the complex of Sokol Mehmed Pasha at Payas. There is only one major complex at Payas, attributed to Sinan and dated 1574 by inscription, suggesting that Mehmed Pasha, patron of the Khan al-Gumruk in Aleppo, and Sokol Mehmed Pasha are the same person.'*” The language of the waqfiyya, written in Ottoman rather than in Arabic as in the case of the other complexes patronized by imperial officials in Aleppo, suggests the close connection between this

particular endowment and the court. The impact of this wagf on Aleppo was tremendous, but its extent covered the length of the empire, well beyond a specific city or region. Endowment

The vast extent of waqf of Mehmed Pasha prompted Sauvaget to speculate that it might be “the most considerable waqf of the Islamic

Orient.”'°° In fact the great sultanic endowments of the sixteenth 8 ET’, s.v. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,” by Gilles Veinstein. For Sokolli’s biography see also Artan, “Kadirga Palace,” 80-84; Tuirk Anszklopedist, s.v. “Mehmed Pasa, Sokolh, Tavil;” Jslam Ansiklopedisi (1st ed.), s.v. “Mehmed Pasa, Sokol, ‘Tavil” by M. Tayyib Gokbilgin; Stireyya, Syzll-2 ‘Osman?, vol. 4, 122-123. A Serbian point of view is developed in Radovan Samardzic, Mehmed Sokolovitch: Le destin dun grand viztr, trans. M. Begic (Lausanne: L’Age d’homme, 1994), originally published as Mehmed Sokolovic (Belgrade: Srpska knjizevna zadruga, 1971).

‘ ‘The inscription on the Payas mosque is dated 1574, and mentions Sultan Selim IT but not Sokolh. That Sokol was the patron is indicated in Tuhfeti’lMi‘marin, and in Sokolh’s waqfiyya. However the Payas complex is not listed in either Tezkeretiil-Bunyan or Tezkiretii*l-Ebniye, Kuran, Sinan, 270. The Payas complex is discussed in: Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 3, 42-43 (misdates the mosque according to Kuran, Sean, n. 55); Cezar, Commercial Buildings, 141-144, figs. 90, 91; Kuran, Sinan, 152, fig. 154; Goodwin discusses the caravanserai which he attributes to Selim II on the basis of the epigraphy, in Ottoman Architecture, 298-99, fig. 288, 982 n. 485;

Ismet Ilter, Tanhi Tiirk Hanlan (Ankara: K. G. M. Matbaasi, 1969), 106; Tayyib Gokbilgin, Edirne ve Pasa Lwas, 512, mentions Payas and Aleppo among a list of Sokolli’s awqaf. Some of Sokoll’s biographies mention the complex at Payas among his extensive list of patronage. See also EI’, s.v. “Payas,” by C. E. Bosworth; Jslam Anstklopedist s.v. “Payas,” by Besim Darkot.

Sauvaget, Alep, 263. I was unable to find this waqfiyya in Ankara, probably because it is not filed under the waqfs of Aleppo, the only ones I was allowed to consult. Ghazzi published a translated summary of the waqfiyya in the possession of the waqf administrator, Ghazzi 2, I, 415-423. According the Ghazzi, the original was dated Jumada I 982/September 1574, and was in Ottoman. Sauvaget,

96 CHAPTER THREE century, like the Sideymdaniye in Istanbul, exceed the wagf of Mehmed

Pasha in the extent of their properties,’”' but it is arguably the largest

provincial endowment. It is remarkable for the value of the properties and the amount of newly built structures, as well as the vast dispersion of the components of the waqf throughout the empire. The waqfiyya translated and summarized by Ghazzi shows that prop-

erties were set up as waqf in Mecca, Madina, Aleppo and Payas principally, but also in Antioch, Aintab, Birecik (al-Bira in Arabic), Tripoli of Syria, Damascus, Hims and Hama; as well as rural areas ranging from Jabal Sim‘an, to ‘Azaz north of Aleppo, to Rumkale, the Hawran, Julan, and Nablus. Today the properties and interests of the waqf fall in Southeastern ‘Turkey, Northern and Eastern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The waqf supported religious institutions and services in far-flung parts of the empire. The ‘Two Noble Sanctuaries of Mecca and Madina

received a large proportion of the waqf’s profits. In addition to a school and a hospital in Mecca, and a hammam, a public fountain, and other waterworks in Madina,'**? both shrines received funds to ensure the recitation of specified sections of the Koran.'”’ Another major beneficiary of the waqf was the large complex in Payas centered around a Great Mosque at the foot of the citadel, which comprised a dervish lodge, a Koranic school (maktab) and a soup kitchen (‘“mdret), as well as waterworks.'** In Aleppo, the waqf’s charitable Alep, 263-265, provided a list of the properties of the waqf located in or just outside of Aleppo, based on Ghazzi’s summary, Alep, 263-265, with minor omissions. Gaube and Wirth provided an analysis of the properties of the waqf in Aleppo, matching some of them to extant structures, 132-133. Additional information regarding this waqf appears in Ottoman firmans: AS Aleppo, v. 1, p. 100, document 206, dated 1102/1690, ratifying various appointments; AS Aleppo, v. 1, p. 134, document 251, dated 1161/1748: directing the disposal of rent income from properties located in Bab Antakiyya; AS Aleppo, v. 1, p. 134, document 252, dated 1161/1748: Reiteration of the waqif’s wish to use the usufruct of khans near Bab Antakiyya to benefit the poor at the Two Noble Sanctuaries. '' The waqfiyya of the Siileymaniye and various documents relating to its waqf have been published: Kemal Edib Kiirkciioglu, Stileymaniye Vakfiyesi (Ankara: Resimli

Posta Matbaasi, 1962), Omer Litfi Barkan. Swleymaniye Cami ve Imareti Insaate (1550-1557), 2 vols. (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1972-9). See also Necipoglu, “Stileymaniye Complex,” Stephane Yérasimos, Istanbul: la mosquée de Soliman (Paris: CNRS éditions, 1997), idem, “Les registres de la Stileymantye,” Dossiers histoire et archéologie 127 (1988): 46-49.

2 Ghazzi 2, II, 416. 3 Ghazzi 2, II, 423. ' Ghazzi 2, II, 416. For the conditions for the running of the mosque, the khanqah and the ‘imaret, 421-422. For the Payas complex, see references above.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 97

institutions featured four neighborhood mosques. In addition to building institutions, the waqf sponsored charitable services such as professorships of law, fellowships for students and readings of prescribed passages of religious texts in mosques around the empire, but principally in the Two Noble Sanctuaries.'* The vast properties of the waqf supplied the income for the charitable institutions and activities. A chief administrator (mutawallz) at a daily stipend of 50 akces'*® presided over no less than 6 secretaries (kab) and 10 revenue officers (jab) in charge of collecting and tab-

ulating the income from the properties. The wagfiyya included an incentive to maximize the income from the properties: if the chief administrator was able to increase the yearly revenue of the waqf by 100,000 akces, his daily stipend would increase by 5 akces; if he was able to raise the revenue above that amount, his daily stipend would increase by | akge.'*’ After every employee had been remunerated, all good works prescribed by the wagqfiyya accomplished, and the properties of the waqf repaired, the mutawalli was instructed to place any remaining funds in a sack, seal it and send it to the supervisor (nazir) of all the awqaf of the empire in Istanbul, the ultmate beneficiary.'”®

Unlike other endowments studied in this chapter, there were no provisions for appointing members of the patron’s family to any of the positions, or providing them with an income. In a second departure from the typical provincial waqf, the charitable institutions and functions were spread in several locations, rather than focusing on a single major religious institution. Unlike the Bahramiyya, the waqf did not benefit a single Great Mosque; rather, the income from the properties supported a complex with a great mosque in Payas, along with a multitude of smaller structures and services, ranging from the

© For example, the wagfiyya appointed funding for a professor of Hanafi law and his students at the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina. It also stipulated that thirty righteous men recite the éawhid a thousand times a day at the same mosque. Ghazzi

» 0 The Ottoman silver coin known as the akce fluctuated in weight and value. While it appears that it continued to be minted from 90% pure silver until the end of the 17th century, its weight decreased from 0.73 gr in 1512, to 0.68 gr in 1582, to 0.38 gr in 1588, to 0.23 gr in 1669, Pamuk, “Money,” 973, Table A:10. This makes it very difficult to calculate the actual values of each stipend. However the relative amounts of stipends within a waqf give an idea of their value. 7 Ghazzi 2, II, 420.

8 Ghazzi 2, I, 421.

98 CHAPTER THREE four neighborhood mosques in Aleppo to the professorships in Madina.

Thus, apart from Payas, where great Islamic institutions had previously been absent, the waqf of Mehmed Pasha enhanced Islamic institutions and functions in places where a strong Islamic infrastructure already existed. In Aleppo specifically, the policy of multiple small endowments in

various parts of the city rather than one major endowment in or near the commercial center arranged around a congregational mosque, distinguished this waqf from the other Ottoman endowments. Nonetheless, the most architecturally prominent structure is still located along

the Mdineh axis, which had emerged by now as the monumental corridor of Ottoman Aleppo. Urban Impact

Urbanistically, the impact of the endowment on Aleppo was immense:

at the time of completion, the waqf of Mehmed Pasha stood as the largest landlord in the city. The properties of the waqfiyya centered on three cores, in addition to properties dispersed inside the ramparts. Only a few of these are identifiable today. Of these cores, the first was the quarter of al-Dabbagha al-‘Atiqa (“the old tannery”).'°’ Its charitable institution, al-Masjid al-‘Umari, was a pre-existing structure adjacent to the old synagogue of Bandara.'™

The most elaborately endowed of the four mosques in Aleppo, this The waqfiyya identifies the quarter as al-Dabbagha al-‘Atiqa. The only identified structure from this group, the al-‘UmariI mosque, is listed by Ghazzi under the al-

Bandara quarter which is adjacent: they are No. 13 and 18 on Marcus’ map of the city’s residential quarters, Marcus, Aleppo, Fig. 8.1. Boundaries between quarters were never completely clear, despite the continuity of toponyms and the perception of boundaries. ‘°° "The synagogue: Gaube and Wirth No. 255. The wagfiyya indicates that the mosque in the al-Dabbagha al-‘Atiqa quarter was formerly known as the al-‘Umari mosque, 416. There are three mosques in Aleppo known as ‘Umari. One is listed by Ghazzi as being located in the Bandara quarter; he does not link this mosque

with the waqf of the Khan al-Gumruk but notes that a nearby bakery is part of the mosque’s endowment. He notes that the mosque’s waqf was renewed in 1857-58;

he does not indicate the date of the original establishment of the mosque, Ghazzi 2, Il, 155. Gaube and Wirth No. 254, do not include this mosque in the Khan al-Gumruk endowment, rather following Ghazzi they associate it with the nineteenth-century waqf. I suspect this mosque is the one described in the waqfiyya, because of its name, location, and the presence of the bakery. The topographical indications in the summarized waqfiyya are insufficient for a secure identification of the structure.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 99

neighborhood masjid was provided with an imam and a muezzin, and funding for necessities such as lamps, candles, and mats.’°' In the same quarter, the patron also built at least three separate income-

producing properties.’ The patron constituted the second “core,” located outside the ram-

parts across from Bab Antakiyya, by building new structures and purchasing existing ones. He constructed two mosques, one at the eastern door of the tannery (dabbagha, pl. madabigh),'* the other facing one of the four khans he endowed.'** Extensive income-producing properties were set up in this area. The tannery, demolished in 1954, consisted of a large two-story structure with a courtyard, equipped with running water and close to the nver Quwaygq, in a quarter known as Mahallat Jisr al-Salahif (“the Bridge of Turtles”).'™ This tannery supplanted the older one within the walled city, in the

quarter of al-Dabbagha al-‘Atiga (“the old tannery’), mentioned The two other ‘Umari mosques, neither of which seem likely to be the one described in the waqfiyya, are: The ‘Umari mosque in the Jallam al-Kubra quarter, Gaube and Wirth, no. 41, adjacent to the northern suq of the Bahramiyya, Ghazzi 2, Il, 61. It is of unknown date. The third ‘“UmarI mosque, in the Bahsita quarter, is of unknown date but its fountain can be dated to the fourteenth century by inscription. Gaube and Wirth No. 232. Ghazzi 2, Il, 162-163; MCIA 1:2, 327. '$l Endowment conditions, Ghazzi 2, II, 421. '°? The wagfiyya lists the structures built by the patron: “a building which contains two storerooms, a shop, a stable, a well and two millstones (madar)”, “a bakery and a well” (I suspect this is the bakery described in Ghazzi 2, II, 155), “a

shop, and a structure which contains two storerooms and a shop and a press (ma‘sara), in which is a well.” None of these structures can be identified today. 'S Ghazzi 2, II, 416, conditions for this mosque, 421. Elswhere Ghazzi noted that this mosque, known as Masjid al-Dabbagha, has a square minaret, Ghazzi 2, IT, 230. This mosque does not seem to be extant any longer; perhaps it was demolished in 1954 at the same time as the tannery. '** This mosque is mentioned only once in Ghazzi’s summary, II, 416. There is no mention of it in the section which details the stipends for the employees of each mosque and special stipulations. Possibly GhazziI simply omitted that part of the original waqfiyya for the sake of brevity. As for the khan which faced the mosque, I suspect it is the largest khan of this core, built by the waqif, described on page 417 by Ghazzi, numbered No. 22 by Sauvaget, Alep, 264. Since Ghazzi’s summary omitted the descriptions of the boundaries of each property, it is difficult to identify any of the structures with certainty, assuming they have survived. ‘°° The tannery (Gaube and Wirth No. 653) measured 170 x 40 meters, Gaube

and Wirth, 410; it had 53 rooms on the ground floor and 58 rooms on the top floor, and two shops near its northern door, Ghazzi 2, Il, 417. Sauvaget published a photograph, Alep 2, Pl. XXIX. The waqfiyya suggests that the tannery was bought rather than built for the waqf, Ghazzi 2, II, 417, however the section listing the mosque near the tannery suggests that the patron built both the mosque and the tannery, 416. In any event, all the structures in this core seem to have been built and operational before 1574, the date of the waqfiyya.

100 CHAPTER THREE above.'®° In addition the patron built two hammams, one of them

destined for the exclusive use of tanners, whose trade created a stench. ‘The hamm4am for tanners also included nine shops, five storerooms, two bakeries, a spacious courtyard and a waterwheel (dalab),'®’ which suggests that it was located on the Quwayq river, conveniently

close to the tannery. The other hammam can be identified with the structure known as hammam al-Wiwadzi, located opposite Bab Antakiyya.'°* Near the tannery the patron bought a windmill or millstone (madar) and two watermills (¢a@hin). Four khans supplemented these structures. One was dedicated to the commerce of grain, which com-

plemented the mills in this core.’ By 991/1583-84, taxes on flour were assessed near Bab Antakiyya, as evidenced by the presence of a special scale (Kapan-1 dakik).'’? All four khans, two of them built for the waqf, were spacious, equipped with shops, storerooms, water-

basins, stables, and other amenities. The patron also bought one, possibly two gardens (bustans). ‘Thus these new structures created both a self-contained suburban quarter for the tanners and their families, near the walled city but sufficiently distant from it to avoid the noxious odor associated with tanning, and a cluster of commercial structures, located just outside the city, close to the entrance of the central market district.

'°° "The waqfiyya summarized by Ghazzi refers to the intramural tannery as “old” (al-Dabbagha al-‘Atiqa), suggesting that the transfer of the tanneries outside Bab Antakiyya had occurred some time before the waqfiyya was written: André Raymond, “Le déplacement des tanneries a Alep, au Caire et a Tunis, a ’é@poque ottomane: un ‘indicateur’ de croissance urbaine,” Revue d’Histowe Maghrébine 7-8 (1977): 194.

‘8’ Ghazzi 2, II, 417. This hammam for tanners cannot be identified with certainty. The most likely candidate 1s Hammam al-Jisr outside Bab al-Jinan, close to

the Quwayq, mentioned in a list of functional hammams of the city in 1923, Tabbakh 2, Ill, 433. Gaube and Wirth list several hammams in that location. The hammam for tanners can also conceivably be identified with one of six hammams in the area outside Bab Antakiya, listed by ‘Tabbakh, which were no longer extant by 1923, Tabbakh 2, III, 430. '8 Hammam al-Wiwadi: Gaube and Wirth, Cat. No. 1, built in 1575. Ghazzi in his discussion of this hamm&am does not specify that it was part of the waqf of Sokolli Mehmed Pasha, Ghazzi 2, II, 230; see also Tabbakh 2, III, 433. Neither hammam is listed in David and Hubert, “Déperissement du hammam,” suggesting that they were no longer in use at the time of their study. Talas, 287, was unable to identify the waqf’s two hammams with any extant structures. ' It is difficult to identify these khans with extant structures. Ghazzi indicates that the grain khan was located to the south of the Zaghalt mosque, however it 1s difficult to identify the latter. Gaube and Wirth, 87. ° Robert Mantran and Jean Sauvaget, Réglements fiscaux ottomans: Les provinces syri-

ennes (Beirut: Institut Frangais de Damas, 1951), 114.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 10]

In his study of tanneries in Ottoman provincial cities, André Raymond observed that they were generally located at the edge of urban areas. Tanneries required the proximity of slaughterhouses that supplied them with animal skins, and of a water source; they required open spaces to dry skins, and created noxious odors. Given the necessity to be located on the periphery, Raymond argued, the relocation of a tannery was an “urban sign” that indicated the expansion of the city limits.'”’ In this sense, the tannery cluster created at the edge of the city by Sokolh Mehmed Pasha reflected the emergence of a “new” periphery for Aleppo at the end of the sixteenth century. Thus the patron intervened in what must have been a longrange urban development, and brought it in line with the process of Ottomanization by making the new tannery easily accessible to the Ottomanized commercial center. The new location was also calculated to take advantage of the river for the watermills and waterwheels. However, as the transfer of the tanneries cleared space in the Old ‘Tannery quarter, and removed a key economic component from it, Sokoli Mehmed Pasha’s creation of a core of institutions in the neighborhood of the old tannery can be seen as a solution to the problems occasioned by the removal. In addition to clusters of structures that activated entire suburban neighborhoods (as in the case of the new tannery) or formed the new focus of an existing quarter, the patron also sprinkled individual income-producing structures throughout the city.'’* These structures, bought rather than newly built, were located in quarters that received little or no official Ottoman patronage. ‘Then, the patron’s aim in Aleppo was twofold: to buy income-producing structures wherever available; and in three instances not only to buy structures, but to

buy land and to build, in order to create clusters of buildings to provide social and economic functions.

‘7! Raymond, “Déplacement des tanneries,” 192. Raymond emphasized the impor-

tance of such “concrete” evidence for the study of Ottoman cities in the absence of statistical data. For discussion of public baths as “urban signs:” André Raymond, “Signes urbains et étude de la population des grandes villes arabes a lépoque ottomane,” BEO 27 (1974): 183-193. '”2 These structures included, for example, a qaysariyya near the Jami‘ al-Utrush, in the quarter of al-A‘jam, and a khan in Mahallat al-Malandi, which may be the same as Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 535; see Gaube and Wirth, 132.

102 CHAPTER THREE Khan al-Gumruk

The cores in the Old and New Tanneries had tremendous urban impact by reviving an old neighborhood and creating a new suburban

neighborhood respectively. By contrast, the third core of the waqf of Sokol in the Mdineh followed the established pattern of official Ottoman patronage in Aleppo by its location in the central market district and the commercial focus of its functions. This group has attracted more scholarly attention than the others, partly because its centerpiece, the Khan al-Gumruk,'” is remarkable for its architecture and for its importance in the commercial life of the city in the sixteenth century, as well as today.'” The charitable institution of the “core” in the Mdineh was the small mosque in the courtyard of the Khan al-Gumruk (Fig. 6).'” In addition to constructing the Khan and its adjacent structures, the patron bought additional properties in the Mdineh including the Sig al-Dahsha with 88 shops.'”° The central cluster of structures, remodeled numerous times, occupies about one hectare, and consists of a

qaysariyya to the east,'’’ and two suqs to the north that are adjacent to the Khan al-Gumruk, and share its architectonic features. The sug known as Suwayqat Khan al-Gumruk abuts the north side > The waqfiyya refers to this caravanserail simply as “al-khan al-kabir,” however after the first mention Ghazzi replaces this with the term “Khan al-Gumruk,” which is a later, local appellation. '* The focus on this cluster of structures is reflected in the fact that, for example, David states incorrectly that the waqf of Mehmed Pasha in Aleppo includes only one mosque, that of the courtyard of the Khan al Gumruk: David, “Domaines,” 183. ' At some point the Khan al-Gumruk became associated with the popular reverence of the Companion ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Ansart. Gonnella, Lslamische Heahgenverehrung,

178, no. 49. The name “Khan al-Gumruk,” “The Caravanserai of Customs,” is a later appelation reflecting the use of the structure. ’° This suq was already extant, located northeast of the Khan al-Gumruk cluster, Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 169. The entrance to the suq: Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate XX VI. Other properties in the Mdineh incorporated into the waqf included: two shops in Sitq al-‘Aba (Gaube and Wirth No. 147), on the main axis to the east of the Khan al-Gumruk; also on the axis, to the west, in Stuq al-Hawa, also known as Siq Bab Antakiyya (Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 8), a bakery, three shops, six rooms, and a stable; a shop in Suq al-Sagatiya (Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 105). The waqif also bought a coffeehouse near the Khan al-Gumruk, and he built Khan al-Qutun near the Khan al-Gumruk, neither of which can be identified. Ghazzi

9, IL, 417. |

‘7 ‘This structure must be either Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 87, which is adjacent to the khan on the western side, or, more likely, it is the structure adjacent to the southeastern corner of the khan. The waqfiyya describes it as “a stable surmounted by a qaysariyya of 23 rooms.” Ghazzi 2, Hl, 417.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 103

of the great caravanserai.'’® It features ground-floor shops on both sides, and cells whose windows overlook the thoroughfare occupy its upper floor on both sides. The wagfiyya identifies this second floor of the siiq as a qaysariyya, considering them two separate units.'” In a section of the city where land was not easily available, the waqf resorted to taking over the area above the shops for the first time, thus effectively creating an additional “zone” in the Mdineh. A series of groin vaults punctuated by domes cover the thoroughfare between the shops, the dome above the entrance to the khan being the largest. The two sts contain ten domes crowned with oculi, the chief sources

of natural light in the covered market. While the khan became a focus for the lucrative long-distance trade by attracting foreign consulates, the two stiqs housed a more pedestrian type of commerce: food and ordinary clothing products.'®°

The fact that the section of the main axis of the Mdineh adjacent to the Suwaygat Khan al-Gumruk was vaulted at the time of the construction of Sokoll’s structures suggests that the surroundings of the entrance to the Khan were carefully planned as an architec-

tural unit. As in the case of the Bahramiyya, domes surmount the meeting points of the two sigs and the axis of the entrance of the khan, staging the presence of the Khan al-Gumruk on the main ’® Suwayqat Khan al-Gumruk: Gaube and Wirth No. 86; Sauvaget, Alep, 216, fig. 54: section of the suq; the section of the main axis of the Mdineh: Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 84. In addition, the waqfiyya describes two newly built structures: a qaysarlyya of 54 rooms “on top” of the suqs adjacent to the Khan to the North and East (identifiable with the qaysariyya on the second floor of the Suwayqat Khan al-Gumruk, illustrated in Sauvaget), and a structure comprising 15 rooms and a stable “on” the suq al-Saqatiyya which cannot be identified, Ghazzi 2, J, 417. '” The difference between the two commercial structures, khan and qaysariyya could be one of form or one of use. A khan implies lodgings for merchants while a qaysarlyya implies a covered market or workshop that can be locked. Of course khans could also be used as markets are were locked at night, and people often lodged in qaysariyyas. On the level of form, it seems that a khan always includes, in the context of Aleppo at least, a courtyard. A qaysariyya may be any building devoted to a commercial purpose, housing merchants or workshops or storerooms. A courtyard is not always present, in some cases the rooms are small and without windows. There seems to be a difference in the quality of construction and the degree of comfort: d’Arvieux distinguished between khans and “caisseries,” which he described as “d’autres logements pour les étrangers, pour les Arabes ou Bédouins qui demeurent en la ville.” D’Arvieux, VI, 434. Sauvaget, Alep, 222, n. 832. Gaube and Wirth, 159-160. Antoine Abdel Nour, “Types architecturaux et vocabulaire de l’habitat en Syrie aux XVI° et XVII° siécles,’ In Dominique Chevallier, ed., L’Espace social de la ville arabe (Paris, 1979): 59-91.

David, “Consulat de France,” 14.

104 CHAPTER THREE thoroughfare. In other words, the domes mark the crossings between

the main thoroughfare and the entrance axis, as well as the crossing between the Suwaygat Khan al-Gumruk and the entrance to the khan.'*' Along the north-south axis of the entrance, the vault features small but remarkably carved details, such as the elaborate knob

at the meeting point of two groin vaults. The fagade featuring the entrance of the khan, and the interior facade on the khan’s courtyard are most elaborately decorated, and merit consideration. The only entrance to the khan is embedded within an elaborately decorated fagade that announces the importance of the structure, but does not denote its exact function.'** The entrance here allows access to the caravanserai’s courtyard and to the rooms on its second story (Fig. 19). This fastidiously composed facade is difficult to view both because it is plunged in a constant semi-darkness, as the only light

filters from the oculus of the dome in front of it, and because the narrowness of the passage does not afford a good view. Since this was the original arrangement, one may wonder why such care was devoted to the elaboration of a facade allowed to be perceived only cimly. ‘he emphasis on an ornate exterior for carvanserais in Ottoman architecture generally, and in Aleppo particularly, seems to require a laboriously rendered doorway, regardless of its degree of visibility.

In the context of 1574 Aleppo, the luxury of this fagade was remarkable, but its formal arrangement was familiar, as it recalled late Mamluk style. Specifically, the facade of the Khan al Gumruk strongly resembles that of the Khan al-Sabtn (ca. 1479) (Pl. 59). However, the Khan al-Sabin is a freestanding structure distinct from its surrounding commercial fabric, and its fagade is not obscured. By contrast, the Khan al-Gumruk, while a separate structure, is architectonically inked to the stiq to its north. The dome above its entrance

is the largest of the ten domes of the cluster, featuring exquisitely carved mugarnas squinches.'® Between the two squinches, a semioval frame contains two small arched iron-grilled windows with a cutout star between them, surrounded by geometric motifs. Below, a thick square frame filled with geometric carving surrounds two larger windows. ‘The practice of using a bold thick geometric square ‘' The axis of the entrance of the khan, perpendicular to the suq axis, is Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 85. '82 David, “Consulat de France,” 14. ‘83 The original dome collapsed at an unknown date. All of the domes of Aleppo’s

covered market were restored around 1995 in brick.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 105

to frame a doorway was frequent in Aleppo, as seen for example in the Khan al-Sabun, where the frame encloses the doorway and the single window above it. At the Khan al-Gumruk, within this frame, the familiar joggled crested stringcourse appears. Below, broad horizontal bands of of black and white stone are interrupted by the two windows with iron grilles, and by a rectangular inscription plaque surmounting the door. The placement of the inscription is also famular. The Khan al-Sabun features an exceptional kufic square inscription on its fagade. Caravanserais such as the Khan al-Abrak feature a rectangular inscription plaque above an otherwise plain doorway.

The inscription of the Khan al-Gumruk is in an Ottoman calligraphic style, and while it is in Arabic, its content 1s Ottoman since it refers to the Sultan of the time.'** Under the inscription, the arch that contains the door displays voussoirs of bold contrasting colors. An enigmatic black ornament incrusted in the white keystone resembles a triangle pointing down, with a semicircle above and two crossshaped designs attached to its sides. A connotative meaning for this technically complex motif does not readily present itself. On either side of the door, at eye level, Mamluk-style shields are carved into the wall.’ Placing shields accompanied by the patron’s blazon on the facade of a structure was common in late Mamluk architecture, the Khan al-Sabiuin nearby bears a blazon to the east of its entrance

arch. Khan Khair Bak bears a blazon on each pane of its metal door, surmounting an inscription (Pl. 7). Blazons also appear on the courtyard walls at the Khan al-Sabtn (northern wall), the Khan Qurt Bak, and the Khan Kha7’ir Bak. In the Ottoman context, shields and blazons did not have the same social meaning as in the Mamluk. ‘The motifs on the Khan al-Gumruk reproduce a form from a past artistic tradition, but without the original meaning. It seems that they formed part and parcel of a repertoire of prestigious decorative forms often used on the facades of caravanserais. This issue is treated in detail

‘* ‘The inscriptions of the Khan al-Gumruk and the Khan al-Sabiin are unpublished.

The Kufic inscription on the Khan al-Sabin contains the Shahada, that is, the statement, “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his messenger.” ‘This is a formulaic statement of faith, not a foundation inscription that advertises the name of the patron and the date of construction. For the Mamluk caravanserais, see Chapter 2. ‘© Tt is very difficult to photograph these motifs. Da‘d al-Hakim, “Al-Khanat fi Halab mundhu al-qarn al-sadis ‘ashar.” Unpublished Thesis, Syrian University [today Damascus University], 1956-1957, preserved at Markaz al-Watha’iq, Damascus. I thank Madame Da‘d for allowing me to read her thesis.

106 CHAPTER THREE in Chapter 5, in the discussion of the Khan al-Wazir, the last of the great Ottoman caravanserais in the central commercial district. The architecture of Ottoman caravanserais commonly features elaborate doorways. ‘These structures, which generally have only one door for security reasons, present a lavish front to the onlooker. For example, blue tiles surround the doorway of the late fifteenth-century

Koza Hani in the market of Bursa (completed 1491).'° The earlier royal Seljuk khans, most famously the Sultan Khan, also featured elaborate muqarnas portals. Thus the Khan al-Gumruk’s emphasis on the entrance meshes with established conventions for this type of building. However, what is crucially distinct in the architecture of the Khan al-Gumruk is the manner in which its fagade appropriates local Mamlik-period forms. While the Ottoman mosques in Aleppo prominently used Ottoman forms that were new to their urban context, by contrast at the Khan al-Gumruk local building traditions were followed, but taken to an extreme degree. Indeed, the Khan al-Gumruk’s elaborate fagade features many of the conventions established by the Mamlik khans of the commercial artery. The extensive use of ablaq, the emphasis on the entranceway and its treatment, especially the presence of the Mamluk shields, all follow local models. ‘These older forms were reused in conjunction with

Ottoman forms, such as the inscription’s hand. In other words, Mamluk forms were appropriated into the Ottoman architectural idiom in this section of the city. Furthermore, the fact that the waqf of the Khan al-Gumruk was far more extensive, and its monumen-

tal caravanserai was far larger and more lavish than any of the Mamluk caravanserais of the Mdineh suggests a drive to both appro-

priate and surpass Mamluk precedents. Placed on the same urban artery as the Mamluk buildings, the fagade of the Khan al-Gumruk was meant to compete with the preexisting Mamluk facades. ‘Through

the deployment ornamental strategies proper to the Mamluks, and through the transformation of these strategies, the facade of the Ottoman khan became a site for the Ottoman appropriation of the Mamluk built forms. ‘© The Koza Hani was built under Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512), its name (Caravanseral of the Cocoon) derives from the fact that it housed the silk trade. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 87, fig. 80, Plan of the central market area, 54, fig. 49; Cezar, Commercial Buildings, 61, fig. 34 (Ground floor plan of Koza Hani), and 65; Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi, Osmanh Mimdrisinde HI. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Deon (886—926/ 1481-1520)

(Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi, 1983), 73-77, fig. 28 and fig. 29.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 107

Despite the fact that several large Ottoman caravanserais had already been built in Aleppo, none of them had received such a lavish facade. ‘The Khan al-Gumruk was the first Ottoman caravanseral which Mamluk ornamental forms embellished. The innovation may derive from the fact that none of the previous Ottoman caravanserais

of the Mdineh had doors on or near the main thoroughfare of the Mdineh; they faced subsidiary or north-south streets. Perhaps the Khan al-Gumruk’s location on this all-important passage necessitated a more lavish entrance. Further, about nine years after the construction of this fagade, the entrance of the Bahramiyya mosque (already discussed), on the same thoroughfare, used similar means to call attention

to itself: a series of domes over the thoroughfares and a treatment of the entrance which employed Mamluk forms and conventions, with Ottoman modifications. Similar to the facade of the Khan alGumruk, and in contrast to the Mamluk facades, the entrance vestibule of the Bahramiyya was not a freestanding building; it formed a continuous architectural unit with the covered thoroughfare. Thus at the Khan al-Gumruk, the Ottoman caravanserai appropriated the conven-

tions of the Mamluk caravanserai; this new formula became itself conventional for the Mdineh, and the next major Ottoman commission,

a mosque, borrowed those forms for its front on the commercial artery. First the Mamluk form was Ottomanized for a khan, then it was used in a mosque, a structure with a distinct function and stylistic conventions. ‘Through the accumulation of patronage, an urban language developed for the new Ottoman monumental corridor. Entering the Khan al-Gumruk, one arrives at a rectangular court-

yard surrounded by four wings. The northern wing of the khan, which presents the elaborate facade discussed above to the commercial artery, also presents an elaborate interior fagade on the court-

yard, unlike the other three wings (Pl. 20). The Khan al-Gumruk’s interior fagade also uses forms reminiscent of Aleppine “late Mamluk”

prototypes. At the lower level, the entrance arch sits within a plain stone frame. Above it, two recessed vertical bays each contain two windows. The bays are bounded to the left and mght by braided engaged colonnettes. Bands of masonry in contrasting yellow and black stone frame the bottom windows, equipped with iron grilles. The windows rest on three joggled stones in alternating colors. Joggled

crested stringcourses identical to the one on the exterior fagade surmount the windows. Above these bands, miniature ogee arches with lobed voussoirs crown smaller windows. Mugqarnas bands just under

108 CHAPTER THREE the cornice of the roof complete the bays. The stalactites of the muqarnas band of the eastern bay are wider than those of the western bay. The Northern wing is surmounted by a dome visible from the courtyard. Features such as vertical bays covering the entire exterior fagade, characterized by a larger and a smaller window, horizontal stone bands of alternating colors at the bottom, a mugqarnas band just below the roof cornice, the roof surmounted by a dome with a high drum, all appear in Aleppo’s Mamluk structures such as the Jami al-Utrush. Such Ottoman constructions as the Mosque of the Eunuch Jawhar, and the ‘Takiyya Mawlawiyya (937/1530—-31, discussed in Chapter 4) reproduce the motif of the vertical bays along the entire length of a fagade. However, the Khan al-Gumruk exhibits the familiar configuration in a new way: the bays are restricted to the area above the entrance, concentrated on the upper half of the facade,

rather than covering the entire fagade with successive bays. At the Khan al-Gumruk Mamluk forms were taken, but they were reduced in scale, used in new ways, to ornament a specific area of a wall rather than to articulate an entire facade. ‘They were, in other words, appropriated and transformed. Apart from the mnovative exterior and interior facades, the Khan

al-Gumruk did not represent a major departure from other khans in Aleppo and of the Empire in terms of its basic configuration. It is a two-story rectangular building with a single entrance, centered around a courtyard.'*’ However, its size, elegant proportions, and the quality of workmanship distinguish it from other caravanserais. Sauvaget considered it the masterpiece of Ottoman commercial architecture in Aleppo. A small octagonal mosque raised on piers occupies the middle of the coutyard, slightly to the East of the entrance axis. Under the mosque is a fountain. ‘The mosque, reachable by an external staircase, consists of a single octagonal domed room. The interior of the mosque, with its single domed space and calligraphic discs stenciled on the spandrels of the squinches, 1s Ottoman. In a similar manner, the Koza Ham (1491) has a central mosque raised on piers. It has been suggested that the practice of placing a raised mosque in the middle of a caravanserai’s courtyard harkens back to the great Seljuk royal khans.'*’

‘87 Ghazzi 2, III, 65. '88- Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 87.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 109

On the east, west and south wings of the caravanserai, identical rooms on the lower floor open onto the courtyard, and an arcade articulates the second story, behind which are identical cells. ‘Today kishks, the local name for a mashrabiyya or oriel screened by wood latticework, grace the courtyard fagade.'* The southern wing features

a barrel-vaulted corridor behind the fourth arch from the eastern corner, that leads to another corridor, perpendicular to it, with a crossing surmounted by a dome. The second corridor serves two rows of cells. A similar wing—two rows of rooms on either side of a corridor—prolongs the western end of the north wing of the Khan. These two wings seem original, but their intended function is unknown.

They served as the permanent lodgings of foreign Western European

merchants since at least the seventeenth century.'”” The interventions on the khan to accommodate the European mode of practicing space are apparent on the northern wing of the khan, and deserve consideration.

The architecture of the northern wing of the khan is distinct. Not only does it feature two elaborate facades, but its second floor has no external arcade. Instead, it consists of a series of rooms arranged on either side of a central corridor. Two sets of stairs leading up from the entrance vestibule provide access to this corridor. A large room with four iwans above the entrance vestibule punctuates this corridor. The

northern and southern iwans of this room correspond to the two elaborate facades on the stq and on the courtyard of the khan. Jean-Claude David reconstructed the sixteenth-century plan of this space and analyzed its alteration in the seventeenth-century, when it housed the consulate of Louis XIV in Aleppo (Fig. 7).'' David '®” Tllustrated in David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” Photos 1, 2. the kishks here appear to date to the nineteenth century on stylistic grounds. Aleppo has stunning khisks of carved wood, sometimes bearing dates; the name comes from the Turkish “kosk,” “kiosk” in English. ”° The second floor of the northwestern appendage was the home of the Picciotto family until the First World War. For a history of the use and transformation of this section from the seventeenth century to the present, see David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 107, fig. 6. David and Grandin discussed the fact that foreign European merchants inhabited the khans, as well as the transformation of the interior space to accomodate a different mode of using space. David, “Consulat de France,” 20, fig. 1, shows the alterations of this space. “! David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 104, fig. 3; Plan in 1950: David, “Consulat de France,” 20, fig. 1. See also Hreitani and David, “Souks traditionnels,” 63-69. ‘The French Consulate in Aleppo was established in 1562, and appears to be located in the Khan al-Gumruk around the early seventeenth century. In the

110 CHAPTER THREE likened the spatial organization of this four-iwan space to the ga‘a of domestic architecture, that is, a grand reception room found in wealthy homes.'*? Originally, the space was cruciform, with a square

domed central area and four iwans. The northern and southern iwans had the windows on the two elaborate facades discussed above. Two domed rooms without windows flanked the northern iwan, and

two barrel vaulted rooms flanked the southern iwan, with windows on the courtyard. A narrower section of the corridor ran parallel to the eastern and western iwans; thus rather than being closed off and obstructing the corridor, the cruciform space in fact resided on the axis of circulation of the khan’s northern wing. The eastern 1wan was smallest, as part of the space symmetrical to the western 1wan had been walled to create a small rectangular room with access to the corridor, possibly a kitchen or a latrine. The original function of this distinctive interior unit is unclear, though

the wagf administrators may have used it as a reception area.’ The grand khans of Aleppo of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries featured large domed rooms above the entrance, some of which seem to have had iwans.'** Among the Mamluk caravanserais in Aleppo, late seventeenth-early eighteenth century, the French consulate moved to the Khan al-Hibal where it remained until the early twentieth century. David, “Consulat de

France,” 15, David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” and Sauvaget, Alep, 217-218, and notes 815, 820. The Khan al-Hibal (1594) will be discussed below. After the departure of the French, the northern wing of the Khan al-Gumruk was occupied by the British consulate, which later moved to the Khan al-Taf (discussed below), until the nineteenth century: David, “Consulat de France,” 16, n. 10. David, “Consulat de France,” 14-15. David does not discuss specific examples of domestic architecture from the sixteenth century. Domestic architecture earlier than the seventeenth century in this part of the world awaits systematic investigation. The word “qa‘a” was used to describe a similar space in the Khan al-Harir in a waqfiyya from the early seventeenth century: VGM, Wagfiyya of Tabam Yass Mehmed Pasha, Aleppo, 1045/1635, defter 579, p. 274. "> David, “Consulat de France,” 15. The waqfiyya as summarized by Ghazzi gives no clue as to the function of this space. ' Of the sixteenth-century Ottoman khans, the Khan al-Farra’in seems to have had originally a single room with an octagonal dome above the entrance vestibule (David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 109, fig. 8). The Khan al-‘Ulabiyya originally had a similar domed room above the vestibule, but not in a central position (David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 112, fig. 10). Khan al-Harir which seems to date to the second half of the sixteenth century, had at least in its altered

state, a large qa‘a above the vestibule but it was not domed and had no iwans (David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 113-115, figs. 11-13; Gaube and Wirth No. 64; Savaget, Alep, 215, n. 808, Alep 2, Plate LXV). The Khan al-Harir’s 1635 wagqfiyya (which postdates its building) states that it has a qa‘a above the entrance with two domes, VGM, Wagfiyya of Tabani Yass1 Mehmed Pasha, 274;

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 111

only the Khan al-Sabun comprises a comparable domed reception room, but in the middle of the southern wing, rather than above the main entrance. Stairs lead from the courtyard up a storey to a large arch, now walled, that originally led to a domed room.’ The arch, framed by a simple checkerboard band, has a higher cornice than the rest of the wall, and is flanked by carved Mamluk shields and blazons.'*° It appears, then, that the ga@‘a was one of the expected

attributes of a grand Ottoman khan in the Mdineh. From the ga‘a, one had visual access to both the goings-on on the external thoroughfare and the activities in the interior courtyard. The gad‘a was the only interior space in the caravanserai that afforded this privileged viewpoint. Significance of the Endowment

In the context of Sokolli’s immense patronage, the waqf in Aleppo differed from endowments that emphasized prestigious monuments in prominent locations. These included, in Istanbul, the complex in Kadirga Liman (1571, which featured a mosque, madrasa, fountain, and dervish lodge),'”’ the Mosque in Azapkap1 (1577—78),'*° and the complex at Eyitp (completed in 1568-69, which includes the Ismihan Sultan mosque and mausoleum).'”’ In addition to charitable institu-

tions, in Istanbul, Sokol built palaces such as the Grand Vizierial palace on the site of the future Sultan Ahmed mosque, a palace in Uskiidar, and a Sinan-designed palace at Kadirga Limani.”” His the later Khan al-Hibal had a qa‘a above the entrance vestibule. One of khans of Sokolli Mehmed Pasha’s waqf outside Antioch Gate had a “high qa‘a,” as described by the summarized waqfiyya, Ghazzi 2, H, 418. The seventeenth-century Khan alWazir has a similar arrangement of two lavish fagades which enclose a special area.

Part of the wing of the Khan al-Sabtin behind the room under discussion was demolished to make way for a street. See the discussion of the Khan al-Wazir, Chapter 5. "© Tt is difficult to point to similar spaces in other Mamluk khans of Aleppo. Khan al-Abrak and Khan Khair Bak do not have domed rooms, rather they have large halls which could have served as reception rooms. The Khan Qurt Bak has a complicated arrangement, and it is difficult to distinguish the Mamluk layer of the building; however it does have blazons on the coutyard walls, which may indicate a hall as in the Khan al-Sabun. "7 Attributed to Sinan. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 272-276, figs. 259-263. ‘8 Groundplan: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 286, fig. 274. '™ Attributed to Sinan. Goodwin, Oltoman Architecture, 281, fig. 282. M. Cezar, “Le killiye de Sokolli Mehmed Pasha a Eytip,” in Séelae turcicae HI, 29-41.

* The palaces were not endowments, but rather private property, which in most

112 CHAPTER THREE patronage extended beyond the imperial capital, to a waqf in Belgrade

(1566, including a caravanserai and covered market),”' kiilliyes in Edirne,” Biiyiikcekmece,’” and Liileburgaz (1549). The latter with a Caravanserai, market, hammam, madrasa, cami and maktab, recalls the complex in Payas.’™ The Aleppine waqf reflects some enduring concerns of Sokolli’s patronage, such as the enhancement and facilitation of existing Ottoman-Islamic institutions, and the emphasis on fundamental services

and infrastructure. Excluding perhaps the Khan al-Gumruk, the Aleppine waqf echoes the concerns of Sokoll’s works such as the bridge

at ViSegrad on the Drina river, as well as the Don-Volga canal and the Suez canal, which he envisioned but did not complete.” The importance of interventions on rural areas and minor towns in the waqf of Sokolh Mehmed Pasha points to an empire-wide pattern of patronage that simultaneously established complexes within the cities as well as complexes away from urban centers, where caravanserais and other commercial buildings figured prominently. Aleppo

provides ample evidence for the former. In an urban setting, caravanserais functioned as hostels for merchants, warehouses for their goods, and sometimes even as workshops and small factories. Away from cities, however, caravanserais were crucial in establishing a network of secure stopping stations for caravans. The rural caravanserais, sometimes described as “forts,” could house garrisons. ‘The complex

at Payas must be seen in the context of the pattern of establishing such structures along trade and pilgrimage routes at distances of a day’s journey from each other. Pilgrims journeying by land from Istanbul to the Two Noble Sanctuaries, as well as caravans bearing

goods from the East used some of the same routes.” Of course, but not all cases reverted to the ruling family after the owner’s death. The Vizierial palace: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 272; Palace at Kadirga: Artan, “Kadirga Palace,” 55-124. ! ET, s.v. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,” by Gilles Veinstein. 2 Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 272. Tayyib Gokbiligin, XV—XVI asirda Edirne ve Pasa Livasi, Istanbul, 1952. 3 Attributed to Sinan. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 293-294. Contains a masjid and a caravanseral. “* Complex in Lileburgaz, attributed to Sinan: Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 295-298, groundplan fig. 287.

EP, s.v. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha,” by Gilles Veinstein. 6 Jean Sauvaget, “Les caravansérails syriens du Hadjdj de Constantinople,” Ars Islamica IV (1937): 98-121. Andrew Peterson, “Early Ottoman Forts on the Darb al-Haijj,” Levant 21 (1989); 97-117.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 113

rulers have always been intent on securing the routes outside of urban centers, and Mamluk-period rural caravanserais already dotted these roads.’ However, in the Ottoman period, the building of caravanserais on this particular leg of the route, the leg connecting Aleppo to southwestern Anatolia, took place over a brief period in the second half of the sixteenth century. This accelerated building program resembles the building campaign in Aleppo’s Mdineh.’” Indeed, apart from the complex of Sokol at Payas, Riistem Pasha built a caravanserai in nearby Kurtkula&i,*” and in 1550, Siileyman I built a caravanserai in Belen (Arabic Baylan), to which Selim II added a small mosque in 1566-1574.?'° Formally, these caravanserais are plain compared to the elaborate facade of the Khan al-Gumruk. The importance of the route at this period can be linked to the same economic realities that contributed to the rise of Aleppo as a center of world-wide trade. ‘The other aspect of this campaign, however, the takeover of land outside the urban cores by the ruling group, and the dotting of the landscape by caravanserais in the Ottoman manner and Ottoman minarets, also speaks to ideological need of the ruler to appropriate the landscape. The expanding and secure trade routes both supported the trade and facilitated the ruling group’s ability to mark a landscape that was traversed more frequently than before. In addition to its impact on the empire’s landscape, the waqf of Sokollii Mehmed Pasha had a tremendous impact on Aleppo, being the largest landholder in the city. While its most architecturally dis-

tinguished component was placed in the Mdineh, supporting the Ottoman patronage pattern of the sixteenth century, the waqf played a significant role in the long-range development of the city, particularly through the movement of the tanneries which defined a new urban edge. The unusual patronage of Sokolli Mehmed Pasha reflects his unique

status in Ottoman history: few men disposed of as much power and “” Jean Sauvaget, “Caravansérails syriens du Moyen-Age,” Ars Islamica VI (1939):

48-55, and VIL, pt. 1 (1940): 1-19. 8 T am currently preparing an essay on the Ottoman campaign of building caravanserais on this leg of the trade and pilgrimage route that probes this issue. * Kurtkulagi Hani: Iter, Hanlar, 101, 110. The date of this khan is unknown but it must date to around the lifetime of Rtistem Pasha, if indeed he is the patron. “10 "The caravanserai at Belen is attributed to Sinan in Tihfeti*l-Mimarin. Sauvaget,

“Caravansérails du Hadjdj,” 99, fig. 3, and 101-102. Kuran lists but does not discuss the caravanserai, “Suleyman’s Patronage,” in Veinstein, ed. Soliman le Magnifique, 223. Iter, Hanlar, 64; Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 299 (inaccurately dated).

114 CHAPTER THREE property. However, the politics of his projects highhght key issues of patronage in this period. Sokoll fulfilled Mustafa ‘Ali’s admonition by using patronage to enhance his reputation and to mark the capital city of the empire with an enduring institution bearing his name (see Introduction). He also fulfilled on a fundamental level his function as a servant of the state, through numerous small endowments dispersed throughout the empire, which served less to advertise his power, but rather supported in myriad ways the functioning of the empire. Indeed, the mosque of Sokolh at Kadirga Limani has endured

and commemorates his name, but the demolished tannery outside Aleppo has lost its association with Sokolh. Yet the establishment of this waqf could only have occurred in this fashion during a time of prosperity, when properties dispersed on the map of the Middle East

could belong to one man, be within the same polity, and be tied up legally to benefit certain charitable institutions and activities. Sokolli’s endowment’s support of the ‘two Noble Sanctuaries reflects another key issue in the use of waqf in this period: far-flung resources throughout the Ottoman empire were mobilized to support the con-

cerns of the imperial center. In this sense, then, Sokolli’s waqf was imperial, and indeed imperialist.

Wagf of Nishant Mehmed Pasha

Two additional sixteenth-century wagfs continued to emphasize the Ottoman predilection for the central commercial district of Aleppo. Their reduced scale indicates that this pattern was beginning to wane. The Khan al-Hibal (“Caravanserai of Rope”), endowed by Nishanji Mehmed Pasha was built in 1594.*'' Mehmed Pasha held the governorship of Aleppo sometime in the late sixteenth century.*’* The “I! Date and patron are mentioned in the inscription above the door, Ghazzi 2, II, 179 and 201. Gaube and Wirth No. 77; David and Grandin, “L’habitat permanent,” 110-111, figs. 9a and Qb. 2 The Sdalnéme makes no mention of a beglerbegi of this name until 1593, when it mentions a Mehmed Pasha without a /agad. ‘This man cannot be Nishanji Mehmed,

who died in 1592, rather it must be Oktiz Mehmed Pasha, the patron of the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr, discussed in Chp. 4, who died as wali of Aleppo in 1593 according to epigraphy. Ottoman sources indicate that Boyalh Mehmed, also known as Kara Nishanji, was beglerbeg of Aleppo at an unspecified date. Both Na‘ima, Tdrth, cited in Tabbakh 2, III, 177, and the various documents cited by Fleischer indicate that Nishanji Mehmed was wali of Aleppo before his appoint-

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR L195

son of a judge of Aleppo named Pir Ahmed, Nishanji Mehmed Pasha held various positions as treasurer, chancellor (nishanj?), beslerbegi

and vizier until his death in 1592. He is the patron of a handsome complex in Istanbul (begun 1584),?!°

Nishanji Mehmed Pasha intended the Khan al-Hibal to augment the already substantial endowments of the Madrasa Hallawiyya.*" Located on one of the northern secondary arteries of the Mdineh, the khan’s principal entrance on the stiq runs parallel to the main axis. To the north it abuts the Madrasa Hallawiyya, to the east it faces the Great Mosque of Aleppo. Like that of the Khan Abrak to its west, its facade simply bears a foundation inscription above the door. In form,

it is a handsomely built caravanserai very similar to the Khan alNahhasin and the Khan al-Harir. Such quality of construction and materials had by then become customary in this part of the city.’” The structure suffered severely in the earthquake of 1822, and was restored in 1860. From the early nineteenth century, it served as the French consulate.’’®

Wagf of Miytab David, “Consulat de France,” 16 n. 10. “© Photograph of the courtyard: Gaube and Wirth, 474, Plate 3, no. 2. *7 Raymond, “Grands Wadfs,” 116. “8 A library of 80 volumes would have been considered middle-sized in Aleppo. For a list of libraries of Aleppo in 1903, see Salndme-1 Vildyet-1 Haleb: Otuz Uiincii Sene [Yearbook of the Province of Aleppo: Thirty-third Year], (Aleppo: Matba‘a-yi Vilayet, 1321/1903) (henceforth Sdlname 1903), 239 (Each Salname contains a similar table).

120 CHAPTER THREE resulted, in this and other cases, in the long-term establishment of the patron’s descendants in the city. The waqf of Ahmed Pasha highlights the legal dimension of Ottomanization. The Ottoman legal system made the cash waaf possible. The first Ottoman legal act in Aleppo was to appropriate the citadel for the Sultan. By establishing the series of large complexes with a monumental presence along the Mdineh, imperial officials created charitable endowments which owned large tracts of land in the eco-

nomic district of the city.’ Thus the marketplace became, legally, a communal Islamic space. As the debate on the Onientalist concept of “the Islamic city” continues, the fact remains that the Ottoman system of waqf administration made Aleppo, like other cities, espe-

cially “Islamic”: in a sense, through waqf, the Islamic community owned the land and controlled its use. The process of Ottomanization in Aleppo employed a variety of architectural and urbanistic devices. The first few Ottoman signs had a limited impact on the life of the city even while they were important symbolically. As the sixteenth century progressed, however, public structures endowed by Ottoman officials from Istanbul shouldered the ideological burden of articulating Ottoman hegemony in the con-

quered territory, in the novel visual grammar of their monumental buildings, in the new spatial arrangements these buildings staged, and

in the urbanistic impact of the functions they sponsored. In the first century of Ottoman rule, institutional complexes reoniented the city towards the commercial corridor that stretched from the Citadel to Antioch Gate. As these complexes were charitable endowments, their establishment presupposed the legal takeover of the plots on which they stood, and the acquisition of further properties, within Aleppo or throughout the empire, or cash, endowed for their maintenance. Thus a legal Ottomanization accompanied the architectural intervention. These complexes, located on or near the new economic core of the city, reoriented the urban functions of Aleppo. Ottoman patrons only selectively destroyed monuments and civic foci associated with the previous ruling group, the Mamluks.

They demolished previous structures or took over squares (such as Tallat ‘A’isha) only when a takeover of the site was necessary for

* The majority of land in the Mdineh today belongs to the awqaf. Hiraytani, Aswaq “al-Mdineh,” 16.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENTAL CORRIDOR 12]

the creation of the new institutional complexes. A more common strategy of Ottomanization consisted in reorienting the functions of the city towards the new monumental and economic center, and thus gradually to render obsolete the previous urban centers that had enjoyed Mamluk patronage, such as the Citadel-Maqamat urban

axis. I'he rare exceptions to this spatialized pattern of patronage confirmed the rule: all the Ottoman mosques in the monumental corridor conformed to the Rumi style, and only the Mdineh featured Ottoman-style mosques. Only the Aghajiq mosque (1585) departs

from this pattern. This beautiful small structure overlooks a courtyard and a garden-cemetery, it 1s enclosed within high walls and is accessible from the street through a gate. The form and facade of

the mosque conform to the central Ottoman idiom. Its current minaret, not in the Ottoman style, surmounts the outer gate and is the only feature of the mosque visible from the street. The name of the mosque, “little Aga,” may suggest the rank of its patron.*”” The Aghajiq is exceptional as the only sixteenth-century mosque in the Ottoman style beyond the Mdineh. Its neighborhood, Sajlikhan alTahtani, east of the citadel, attracted very little patronage in either the Mamluk or the Ottoman periods, and there were no subsequent Ottoman foundations there. Significantly, the minimal size of its minaret means that this mosque does not register on the city’s skyline, thus it does not participate in the row of Ottoman domes and minarets of the Mdineh that contribute so vividly to the creation of the image of Ottoman Aleppo. In addition to recreating the city’s skyline, the monumental new mosques of the Mdineh imitated central Ottoman models in their form, in the arrangement of space within the complexes, and in the axial approaches to the mosque entrances. However, the reproduction of Rumi forms accompanied the recontextualization of Mamluk motifs peculiar to the city, and echoing previous structures in specific urban sections. The caravanserais, the Khan al-Gumruk especially, *9 The name of the mosque (“agacik” in Modern Turkish orthography) means “little Aga.” For local lore regarding its name, see Ghazzi 2, II, 268. I am assuming that the title Aga indicates an Ottoman official, however it is possible that this Aga was a local notable. I am also assuming that the local appelation refers to the title of the patron, an assumption we are unable to test because the inscription is partly illegible, and the archives did not yield a waqfiyya. Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 110, No. 108; Sauvaget, Alep, 234; Gaube and Wirth Cat. No. 572, p. 404; Gonnella, Lslamische Healigenverehrung, 145, and 199, No. 88. Tabbakh seems unaware of this structure. The urban setting of the mosque is explored in Gangler, Traditionelles Wohnviertel.

122 CHAPTER THREE incorporated architectonic elements from earlier periods proper to this type of architecture in the same location in the city. The caravanserais became the site of the Ottoman appropriation of Mamluk architecture in Aleppo; moreover, they became the site of the development of a new, contextual urban language. The urban impact of Ottoman patronage in Aleppo was ensured through monumental structures, but also through the provision of infrastructure, and the refurbishment and construction of myriad modest public structures such as fountains, workshops, stables, and coffeehouses. They affected the urban development of neighborhoods and moved the city’s edge ever further from the ramparts. ‘Through waqf the functions of entire sections of the city were altered in per-

petuity. The Ottoman endowments emphasized the support of the Hanafi madhhab, and education through maktabs and the legal college at the Khusruwiyya. Most importantly, however, that function of the city most appealing to the imperial center the most, the longdistance trade, motivated Ottoman officials to build commercial struc-

tures in Aleppo, both to encourage and to profit from the trade. As the fortunes of the city rose in the second half of the sixteenth century, so its architecture and urbanism acquired their distinctive char-

acter. Ottoman official patronage along the Mdineh artery was mirrored by the establishment of fortified caravanserais along the trade and pilgrimage routes that crisscrossed the imperial landscape beyond cities. These rural carvanserais not only secured the routes for the caravans of merchants and pilgrims, but through their distinctive Ottoman forms and construction techniques, they also established formal continuity between the city and the countryside; they created an Ottoman landscape.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE: DERVISH LODGES AND ENDOWMENTS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

The Great Wagfs of the second half of the sixteenth century by privuleging the cental commercial district reoriented the urban center of Aleppo. Their monumental structures, great mosques, caravanserais and a madrasa, became permanent fixtures on the city’s skyline as well as its social, economic and religious life. However, the momentum of patronage that produced an architecturally unified core through the accumulation of individual endowments waned towards the end of the sixteenth century, as Chapter 3 showed, as the official Ottoman waqfs diminished in scale. Global trends in the long-distance trade as well as local and empire-wide political unrest altered the fortunes of Aleppines and shifted the production of space in their town. At the end of the sixteenth century Aleppo and its hinterland were convulsed by the Jelali revolts (approx. 1590—1620).' The Jelali revolts

name the numerous small-scale rebellions in what is today Northern Syria, Central and Southern Turkey, where loosely organized bands of bandits (composed of disgruntled soldiers, religious students and landless peasants) fought the central Ottoman authority. The most threatening episode of rebellion occurred in the hinterland of Aleppo, successively led by two local landed notables of Kurdish origin, Janpulatoglu Hiiseyin Pasha and Janpulatoglu ‘Ali Pasha, the latter with the support of the duke of Tuscany and the Safavid shah, both enemies of the Ottoman state. Before their rebellion was crushed 1n 1607, they occupied the city twice.* The disruptions in trade, agriculture, ' William Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1983); Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization (Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1994). > The Janbulad clan (i.e. “steel-hearted,” contemporary Arabic Junblat, Turkish Janpulatoglu), were local feudal lords of Kurdish origin. Abdul Karim Rafeq, “The Revolt of ‘Ali Pasha Janbulad (1605-1607) in the Contemporary Arabic Sources and Its Significance,” In VIL. Tiirk Tanh Kongrest: Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler (Ankara,

1983); Yusuf Qaralt, Ad Basha Funblat, wali Halab, 1611-1605 (Beirut: Manshurat Dar al-Makshif, 1939).

124 CHAPTER FOUR and displaced populations left long-term scars. The global trade in luxury products never regained its momentum. An intensification of mystical piety in Aleppo matched this upheaval.

Compared to the era of rapid growth in the sixteenth century (often called the Classical Age), the seventeenth century is less well

known in the history of the Ottoman empire, described as one of decline.’ In fact, the seventeenth century was a period of reorientation and consolidation. In terms of official architectural patronage, the large, central monumental endowments gave way to smaller architectural complexes that comprised modest neighborhood mosques and dervish lodges.* This pattern of patronage by Ottoman officials that asserted itself at the turn of the seventeenth century (ca. 1580-1630) consisted in the support for sufis and sufi institutions, spread within the walled city and without. Institutions favored by the previous wave of patrons,

such as monumental Great Mosques and madrasas were not built in the early seventeenth century. The endowments which supported sufi life in Aleppo were also relatively smaller than the sixteenthcentury waqfs; often multiple patrons contributed minor endowments to a single lodge. ‘The seventeenth century saw the establishment of only one complex of comparable magnitude and built in one campaign, the waqf of Ipshir Pasha. In terms of visual impact, the complexes of the seventeenth century did not display central Ottoman forms with the same confidence, rather their style and layout reflect the new, uncertain social and economic realities. Another characteristic of the seventeenth century endowments was

that rather than privileging a central urban location, they spread throughout the city (Fig. 8). Official patronage in the second century of Ottoman rule in Aleppo thus seems decentered. ‘The implications of this trend were critical for Aleppo’s urbanism. Rather than contracting, the urban development of Aleppo intensified, particularly in suburban neighborhoods, and sufi institutions played a critical role in pioneering the wilderness around the city and initiating its urbanization.’ The main axes of urban growth were the northeastern edge * Cemal Kafadar, “The Question of Ottoman Decline,” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4 (1997-8): 30-75.

* Dervish lodges had been built in Aleppo since the medieval period, but they dominate the patronage of the 17th century. » Some of these issues are explored in my essay, “Deviant Dervishes: Space, Gender and the Construction of Antinomian Piety in Ottoman Aleppo,” forthcoming. I am exploring the role of sufi lodges in the urbanization of Aleppo in an essay In preparation, “Between Wilderness and Architecture: Antinomian Piety and Urbanization in Ottoman Aleppo.”

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 125 of the walled city, near the access points of the caravans coming from the desert routes.° Extending north from Bab al-Nasr were the emerging neighborhoods of Turab al-Ghuraba’, Almaji, Aghyir, ‘Uryan and Mar‘ashli, in the urbanization of which the lodge of Shaykh Abu Bakr played a key role.’ Aleppo’s centrality in commercial flows was paralleled in its status as a crossing place for mystical figures. While Damascus was well-

known for its religious importance, its shrines and famous mystics (e.g. the tomb of Ibn al-‘Arabi), Aleppo too boasted sites related to relics of Prophets (Muhammad, Zakariyya, Abraham), and venerated tombs of men whose lives had been exemplary. In addition to pulerimage sites, it was connected to religious networks in the Ottoman empire and beyond as a station on the Istanbul-Mecca pilgrimage route.® Alongside the venerable jurists, traditionists and sufi masters who received imperial appointments at the Ottoman-buult madrasas

and dervish lodges, Aleppo also attracted itinerant dervishes from within the Ottoman empire and without, who brought new forms of mystical piety to the city. While a new wave of Ottoman patrons endowed dervish lodges, takiyyas constructed by previous ruling groups

continued to thrive. This chapter focuses on the endowments of the seventeenth century. It introduces the Ottoman-period reuse of existing mystical centers to underscore another aspect of Ottomanization: the recontextualization and appropriation of popular piety. It then examines four major sufi

lodges endowed by Ottoman patrons. Among them, the Takiyya Mawlawiyya and the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr had the largest endowments, were located near crucial urban thresholds and were consistently singled out by early modern observers as the most impor-

tant.” This chapter examines the origins and development of each lodge and its fartga (sufi order); it also suggests reasons for the popularity of sufism among Ottoman officials in the seventeenth century.

° Sauvaget, Alep, Chp. 10. This urbanization extended to the entire eastern edge of the city, the location of the industries related to the caravan trade. " These neighborhoods had a heavily Turkic-Kurdish population. See Ghazzi 2, II, 324-327 (Aghyir), 328-329 (Almaji), 342-343 (Turab al-Ghuraba’), 344-345 (Mar‘ashli), 346-347 (Uryan, also called Jugqur Qastal). ° Suraiya Faroghi, Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hay under the Ottomans, 1517-1683 (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1994). ” Both d’Arvieux and Russell noted that these two lodges were the most important sufi institutions in the city, in the late seventeenth and the eighteenth century respectively. See below. Sauvaget set them apart for their monumentality, Alep, 235.

126 CHAPTER FOUR Then the largest endowment of the seventeenth-century, the waqf of Ipshir Pasha is discussed in terms of its urban context and its promotion of the coffeehouse, a newly popular urban site of sociability.

Ottoman Reuse of Sufi Sites

Evliya Gelebi estimated during his visit in 1671-72 that Aleppo boasted 170 takiyyas, ziyaretgahs, and similar structures.'’ Most were

older sufi structures, where, along with the new lodges built by Ottoman patrons, the mystical life of Aleppines unfolded. The tomb of the noted mystic Nasimi (d. ca. 820/1417-18), located at the foot of the citadel, constitutes a famous Mamluk-period site that elicited Ottoman interest.'' A sufi from the Hurtff movement, Nasimi became a charismatic master and preacher in Aleppo, famous

for his poetry strongly critical of conventional Islam: “Do not be deceived by legends, for the tales of each preacher who sells the Koran are long-winded legends.”’* The ‘ulama’ of the city deemed such poems heretical. The Mamltk Sultan Mu’ayyad enforced their Jatwa (legal opinion) and executed Nasimi by flaying. Once the threat of the living mystic was removed, however, the same elite that had persecuted him erected a sufi lodge on the site of his execution, supported by religious endowments, and it has been active ever since. ‘° The number 170 is given in Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 378, for a list of the sufi orders in Aleppo see p. 381. In 1924, Tabbakh put the number of sufi lodges of the city at 34. A catalogue of dervish lodges and devotion to walis in Aleppo is in Gonnella, Islamische Heiligenverehrung. See also Eric Geoffroy, Le soufisme en Egypte et en Syrie sous les derniers Mamelouks et les premiers Ottomans (Damascus: Institut

Francgais de Damas, 1995); Barbara Rosenow von Schlegel, “Sufism in the Ottoman

Arab World: Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabiilusi (d. 1143/1731),” (Ph.D. Diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1997); for a contemporary ethnography of Aleppine Sufism, see Paulo Pinto, “Mystical Bodies: Ritual, Experience and the Embodiment of Sufism in Syria” (Ph.D. Diss., Boston University, 2002). In contemporary secular Syria sufi brotherhoods are banned; consequently the brotherhoods occupy an ambiguous space. '' For the Zawiya of al-Nasimi, see Ghazzi, Hl, 138, Gonnella, Islamische Heiligenverehrung, 256-257, No. 164; Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 380; Simeon

Dpir Lehatsi (b. 1584), “Simeon Tpri Lehats’woy Ughegrut’iwn (1608-1619),” ed. Nerses Akinian, in Handes Amsoreay (1935), 85; ‘Lalas, 253-254, Gaube and Wirth, 377. The two mysterious umbrella-shapes at the foot of the citadel in Matrakci’s depiction of Aleppo may represent this site (see Chapter 6). Translated in Colin Imber, “The Wandering Dervishes,” in Mashrig: Proceedings of the Eastern Mediterranean Seminar, University of Manchester, 1977-78 (Manchester:

University of Manchester, 1980), 42. E/’, s.v. “Nesimi,” by F. Babinger.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 127 This example shows that the range of responses by established groups towards antinomian piety, namely persecution and reverence, were

deployed sequentially. In 1504, the last Mamluk sultan Qansuh alGhiri renovated the lodge, which today comprises Ottoman tombstones of mystics and notables in its small garden-cemetery, indicating

the continuing use of the site."

The Zawiya Hilalyya constitutes an example of an Ottomanperiod dervish lodge near the center of the city, in the Jallam neigh-

borhood. It was centered on the tomb of Muhammad Hilal al-Ramhamdani (1638-1734) who founded the Hulaliyya order in Aleppo, a branch of the Qadiriyya.'* At his death, he was buried in the courtyard of the mosque of Jalltim where he led the dhikr.’” Endowments were established to support the lodge, notably by the governor Mustafa Pasha in the early eighteenth century.’ Most of Aleppo’s lodges were built within the urban core and their functions were fully integrated into urban life. However, religious shrines had existed in the wilderness beyond the city’s edge since the medieval period, particularly in two clusters. Ayyubid and Mamluk patrons had privileged the tombs in Maqamat to the south, © centered on the shrine of the Prophet Abraham (see Chapter 2). ‘The thirteenth century saw the construction of two other shrines, to the west of the city, beyond the river Quwaygq, on the mountain Jabal Jawshan. The Mashhad al-Husayn, also called Masjid al-Mukhtar, houses a rock from Karbala’ which bears a blood drop of the Imam

Husayn, shed during the fateful battle.'’ The Mashhad of Shaykh > Sauvaget, Alep 2, Plate XLVI. ‘+ Thierry Zarcone, “Un cas de métissage entre Qadiriyya et Khalwatiyya: Dhikr et khalwa dans la zawiyya al-Hilaliyya d’Alep,” Journal of the History of Sufism 1-2

(2000): 443-455. For a contemporary ethnography at the Hilaliyya, see Pinto, “Mystical Bodies.” Ghazzi 2, Il, 56-57, Gonnella, Islamische Heiligenverehrung, 248-250, Gaube and

Wirth, no. 434. ‘© Ruth Roded, “Great Mosques, Zawiyas, and Neighborhood Mosques: Popular Beneficiaries of Waqf Endowments in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Aleppo,” Journal of the American Onental Society 110 (1990), 34. Roded uses the endowment deeds summarized in GhazziI and ‘Tabbakh. '’ Jean Sauvaget, “Deux sanctuaires chiites d’Alep,” Syria IX (1928): 224-237: he considered the Mashhad al-Husayn the most beautiful architectural work in Aleppo; idem., Alep, 125, n. 418; idem., “Inventaire,” 79, no. 20; Gaube and Wirth, cat. no. 651; MCIA 1:1, 236-248, inscriptions nos. 112-118; MCIA 2, Pl. XCIV, XCV, XCIX; Gaube, Jnschrifien, 26, no. 33, 34; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, vol. 2, 12, cat. no. 4/27; Gonnella, Lslamische Heiligenverehrung, 195-196, no. 81. Ghazzi 2, II, 211-212. Tabbaa, Constructions of Power, 110-121.

128 CHAPTER FOUR Muhassin, also called Mashhad al-Dikka, commemorates the tomb of a stillborn son of Husayn.'* Continual repairs indicate that successive generations of patrons recognized the importance of the two shrines. ‘Today identified as Shri, they figure on the pilgrimage route of hayjis from Iran, but in the Ottoman period they were not viewed

in such sectarian terms, since the afl al-bayt were revered by all Muslhms.’” Significantly, neither suburban monumental cluster attracted

the patronage of Ottoman officials, who favored instead the two extramural lodges buut after the Ottoman conquest. The Takiyya of Baba Bayram constitutes an example of the continuous use of a shrine through the medieval and the Ottoman periods. It is also the earliest instance of an isolated shrine outside the city that pioneered the urbanization of a neighborhood. The taktyya

was built around the tomb of Baba Bayram (d. 1362), along the White Road, locally known as Aghyiur, an artery that extended north into the wilderness from the northern gate of Bab al-Nasr.”” Bayram was remembered in Aleppo as a Persian saint’! from Khurasan who 'S Sauvaget, “Deux sanctuaires chiites,” 319-327; idem., “Inventaire,” 74, no. 14; Gaube and Wirth, cat. no. 652; MCIA 1:1, 193-201, inscriptions no. 93-97, MCIA 2, Pl. LX XX; Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, vol. 2, 12, cat. no. 4/28; Gonnella, Islamasche Heiligenverehrung, 196-197, no. 82. Ghazzi 2, I, 212-214. Tabbaa, Constructions

of Power, 109-110.

' In the nineteenth century, Sultan ‘Abdiil-Hamid II renovated the shrines. Mashhad al-Husayn exploded in 1920, when King Faysal’s troops were storing gun-

powder in it. It has since been restored. Sauvaget, “Deux sanctuaires chiites;” Ibrahim Nasrallah, Atha, Al Muhammad ft Halab (Aleppo: Matba‘at al-Watan al‘Arabi, 1995), written by the current imam of Mashhad al-Husayn, this book relies heavily on previous scholarship but provides information on the recent restoration of the two shrines; also idem, Halab wa’l-tashayyu‘ (Beirut: Mu/’assasat al-wafa’, 1983).

On the Shi‘T community in Aleppo in the seventeenth century: Marco Salati, Ascesa e Caduta di una Famigha di Asraf Scuti di Aleppo: I Luhrawi o Kuhra-Kada (1600-1700)

(Rome: Istituto per Oriente C. A. Nallino, 1992); idem, “Toleration, Persecution and Local Realities: Observations on the Shiism in the Holy Places and the Builad al-Sham,” In Convegno sul tema: la shi‘a nell’mpero ottomano (Roma: 15 Apnle 1991)

(Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1993): 121-148. *” On the neighborhood along the White Road (al-darb al abyad in Arabic, aq _yul in Turkish), pronounced Aghytr locally, Ghazzi 2, II, 324-327. *! While some authors object to the term “saint” to render “wali,” and prefer to use “friend of God,” I have opted to use “saint” for convenience. EI’, s.v. “Wali. General Survey,” by B. Radtke. The Aleppine sources state that Bayram was a son of the Central Asian mystic Ahmad Yasawi (d. 1166), based on an inscription at the site quoted in Ghazzi 2, [l, 325-326. This is impossible since 196 years separate their deaths. However, even though Yasawi’s mysticism fell within the purview of shari‘a, he was claimed as a mentor by the Haydari group of deviant dervishes: Ahmet T. Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle

Period, 1200-1550 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994), 45. The shaykh

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 129 dwelled in a cave near the White road. After his death, a sufi lodge was established near his tomb, eventually forming the nucleus of the neighborhood of Aghyutr. The history of this takiyya is difficult to reconstruct.” It attracted the patronage of prominent regional nota-

bles in the 1470s.*? The fact that a wife of the Mamluk sultan Oansauh al-Ghiri was buried at the lodge at the turn of the fifteenth to the sixteenth century indicates its importance. Inscriptions recorded Ottoman-period renovations in 1592, 1637 and 1698." By the early twentieth century, the neighborhood around the takiyya was wellestablished, and hosted the sig al-ahad (Sunday market) weekly. The lodge, now largely destroyed,” included a mosque, the domed tomb

of Bayram and other mausolea around a large courtyard, all the Ottoman style.*° The trajectory of the brotherhood at this lodge mirrors the broad transformations in Ottoman esoteric mysticism. ‘The Lodge appears to have been initially Qalandari; it was Bektashi in the seventeenth century, as stated by Evliya and an inscription, and was Qalandari according to all the twentieth-century sources.*’ The Takiyya of Baba Bayram is the earliest example of an esoteric religious site, initiated by a pioneering mystical figure in the wilderness of the Takiyya of Bayram in the 1920’s stated that Yasawi had been the spiritual guide of Haji Bektash (d. 1270-71), Tabbakh 2, vol. 7, 388-389. Clearly the two men never crossed paths but the invocation of Haji Bektash confirms the esoteric, qalandari associations of the Lodge. ” Tbn al-Hanbali, 1:1, 97, one of the earliest and rare sources to cite the lodge, mentions it in passing as a landmark on al-darb al-abyad. See also Shaykh Wafa’, Awliya Halab, 276. 23 "Tabbakh 2, VII, 150 and 388-389, Ghazzi 2, II, 325-326. Gonnella, Islamische Flealigenverehrung, 239-241. Sauvaget, Alep, 245. Gaube and Wirth No. 511, 398.

** No patron was given in the Ottoman-language 1592 inscription, quoted in Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 380. The two seventeenth-century inscriptions recorded repaires by the shaykhs of the lodge, quoted respectively in ‘Tabbakh, 2, VU, 388 and Gaube, Inschrifien, 56-57. * The lodge was destroyed in the early 1980’s. Asadi, Ahya’ Halab, 86, Gaube and Wirth, 398. *° Talas, 245-248. 7 On the Bektashiyya’s early history as a branch of deviant dervishes before mutating into an authorized sufi brotherhood, see Karamustafa, 83-84. Ghazzti, Tabbakh, Asadi, among other twentieth-century writers, stated that the lodge housed a qalandari dervish community. As many qalandars were absorbed in the 17th century in the Bektashiyya, a possible trajectory for Bayram’s lodge is initially qalandari, then folded into the Bektashi order, then reverted to galandarism. It is possible that this lodge was the QalandarlI community of Aleppo visited by Bliss around 1912, though Bliss does not specify the location of their lodge, F. J. Bliss, The Religions of Modern Syna and Palestine (New York: Charles Scribner, 1912), 236. For a study of antinomian mysticism in Aleppo, see my “Deviant Dervishes.”

130 CHAPTER FOUR whose tomb became the focus of urbanization, in this case the suburban neighborhood of Aghyir. ‘This pattern was repeated with the tomb of Shaykh Abt Bakr in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see below). Bayram was thus a precursor of Abu Bakr’s as an antinomian dervish whose tomb pioneered a suburban neighborhood. In both cases, the movement of urbanization intensified in the Ottoman period and relied on the legal mechanism of the wadaf.

Takiyya Mawlawtyya

The ‘Taktyya Mawlawiyya’s location to the walled city’s northwest outside Bab al-Jinan (Gate of the Gardens) near the Quwaygq river placed it near an urban threshold. The western edge of the city had been only sparsely urbanized, the major exception being the neighborhood of the new tannery outside the Antioch Gate, part of the waqt of the Khan al-Gumruk (see Chapter 3). Long before the heavy urbanization of its surroundings in the late nineteenth century, the takiyya stood in relative isolation among gardens known as Bustan al-Kulab (Gil Ab, “rosewater”), and the perceived distance of the area from the city was compounded by a fear of robbers, particularly at night.” A system of canals and a waterwheel provided the Takiyya with water from the nearby river, and irrigated the gardens which were the lodge’s waqf.” Despite its importance in the sufi life of the city, information on the construction of the Takiyya Mawlawiyya is scarce.*° Its foundation date is unclear; certainly it was built after Aleppo became part of the Ottoman empire, when the Mawlawi (Mevlevi in Ottoman) brotherhood was introduced to the province.*’ The death date of the earliest shaykh of the Takiyya, 1530, can be taken as a chronological signpost.** Apparently around this date, Mirza Fulad and Mirza *’ Tabbakh 2, II, 378: in 1883, the governor Jamil Pasha built a palace for himself near the Takiyya Mawlawiyya, which became the nucleus of the quarter known as Jamiliyya. 2? Waterwheel: Ghazzi 2, II, 235; canals: D’Arvieux, Mémoires, VI, 464. °° The Takiyya Mawlawiyya is noted in Meinecke, Mamlukische Architektur, vol. 1,

208, and Plate 140c. Sauvaget did not include it in his “Inventaire,” though he mentioned it in Alep, 235. See also Talas, 256-257; Asadi, Akya@’ Halab, 284-285.

*' Ghazzi 2, I, 237. * The shaykhs of the Takiyya with dates are listed in Ghazzi 2, II, 236. The

sufis buried there are listed without any dates in: Shaykh Wafa’, Awhya’ Halab,

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 13] ‘Ilwan, two Persians (/faristyyan) who were Sunnis and followers of

the Mawlawi tariqa, leaving the Safavid state, made Aleppo their home and established the lodge.*’ This information coincides with the fact that Shah Ismail (r. 1501-1524) directed a decisive realignment mm the ideology of the Safavid order, which led, among other things, to intolerance or downright suppression of rival sufi groups, including the Mawlawiyya.** Mawlawi lodges were ordered hierar-

chically, with the mother lodge in Konya at the apex; in this ladder, the lodge in Aleppo was an dsatana, a more prestigious category than zdwiya.*°

Two endowment deeds dated 1616 further confuse the issue of the foundation date. Both were set up in the name of the deceased Husayn Pasha b. Jan Bulad, a leader of the Jelali revolts, by his son Mustafa Bak. ‘They endowed properties in Aleppo whose income was to support the fugara’ (dervishes, or resident mystics) of the “Mawlawi khana” (Mevlevibane) in Aleppo, of the mother lodge in Konya and

at the Two Noble Sanctuaries. The later document identifies one ‘Ali Pasha al-Wand (possibly a rendition of the Ottoman Levend)?)

as the original builder of the “Mawlawi khana” in Aleppo.*’ Accordingly, the Takiyya probably dates to the mid- to late sixteenth century. However, it is clear that the building of the ‘Takiyya was 60-62. Ghazzi’s date is not corroborated. [bn al-Hanbali is silent on the matter of the Mawlawiyya. > Ghazzi 2, Ul, 236. ** Lapidus, History of Islamic Socteties, 296-297.

» EP, s.v. “Mawlawiyya,” section by D. 8. Margoliouth. Outside Anatolia, there were dsalanas in Aleppo, Damascus, Cairo and Nicosia: see Muhammad al-Muradi, Silk al-durar ft a’yan al-qarn al-hadi ‘ashar (Cairo, 1874-1883), L, 329, and HI, 116. °° VGM, Wagfiyya of Husayn Pasha b. Jan Balad, Aleppo, | Ramadan 1025/12

September 1616, defter 582/2, p. 529; and VGM, Waafiyya of Husayn Pasha b. Jan Balad, Aleppo, | Shawwal 1025/12 October 1616, defter 582/2, p. 551. Both waqfiyyas are in Arabic. Husayn Pasha b. Jan Bulad, a key figure of the Jelali Revolts, briefly served as beglerbegi of Aleppo in 1604. No other historical source mentions his posthumous patronage of the Takiyya Mawlawiyya. Tabbakh 2, II, 180-194; Ghazzi 2, III, 213-218. For a biography of Husayn Pasha’s father, Janbulat Bak b. al-Amir Qasim al-Kurdi (d. 983/1576), see Ibn al-Hanbali, 1:1, 437-445; for his patronage of commercial structures in the city of Kailis: Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 362, and Cezar, Commercial Buildings, 120-121. *’ ‘This SAli may be one and the same as ‘AIi b. ‘Iwan Pasha, governor of Aleppo in 1576, Tabbakh 2, III, 174. ‘Ali Pasha al-Wand appears in a biography of Shaykh

Abu Bakr, but with no indication of a date, al-‘Urdi, 33-34. He is likely the father of Hasan Pasha b. ‘Ali Pasha al-Rand or al-Wand (Levend?), beglerbegi of Aleppo

in 1601, and patron of the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr, see below. The only extant biography of a member of this family is that of Hasan’s brother Aslan pasha (d. 1625), al-“Urdi, 157-158.

132 CHAPTER FOUR an accretive process that continued through the twentieth century.” Though we cannot be certain when the Takiyya Mawlawiyya took shape, in form it echoes the Mamluk rather than the Ottoman visual

idiom (Pl. 21). An outer wall surrounds a cluster of freestanding buudings, pierced by a doorway that an octagonal minaret surmounts. Behind this fagade, surrounding a courtyard and pool (hawd ), loosely arranged structures from various periods include a mosque, a sama‘

khana (a space for the Mawlawi spiritual concert), a kitchen, cells for the dervishes, and tombs.” In a manner typical of Mamluk structures, five identical bays featuring two rows of windows divide the facade of the sama‘ khana. Ablaq bands of bichrome masonry and joggled stringcourses frame the lower windows while pointed arches surmount the smaller upper windows. Braided engaged colonnettes define the bays at the bottom. A double band of muqarnas crowns each bay. A plain cornice lines a flat roof, from which one large and two smaller domes rise. Evliya praised the plane trees in the complex; he noted, however that the mosque was unfinished.*” The fact that the mosque was incomplete at this date (1671-1672) supports the notion that at the Mawlawiyya as well as the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr, consistent with sufi practice, the mosque was not the focal point of the complex. Even though the Mawlawiyya had a minaret, whence presumably the call to prayer was performed, it does not seem to have had a congregation beyond the resident dervishes. However Aleppines, including women, were free to attend the dervish dhzkr (ritual) once a week.*! °° The great hall was rebuilt in the nineteenth century: David, Wagf d’Ipsir Pasa, 38, n. 4. The only known inscription at this lodge is dated 1903 (tombstone of ‘Ali Muhassin Pasha), ‘Tabbakh 2, II, 390. Meinecke dates it to 1530, presumably on

the basis of the date in Ghazzi as well as style. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Mawlawiyya in Aleppo became the refuge of the Mevlevis of Konya, who were suppressed in the Turkish Republic after 1925 under Atatiirk’s secular rule: Gonnella, Islamische Healigenverehrung, 242; Louis Massignon, Annuaire du monde musulman 1954

(Paris, 1955), 201; ET?, s.v. “Mawlawiyya,” section by F. de Jong; I thank Ms. Aylin McCarthy of Istanbul for sharing with me her family history, particularly the episode of the last Celebi’s migration from Konya to Aleppo. * Today the central courtyard includes a gated cemetery containing mostly nineteenth and early twentieth-century tombs. ‘The functions of the buildings conform

to the types of structures necessary in a Mawlawi lodge as described in EI’, s.v. “Mawlawiyya,” section by T. Yazici1. Godfrey Goodwin, “The Dervish Architecture of Anatolia,” in The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, ed. Raymond Lifchez (Berkeley: University of California Press), esp. 64—66.

0 “",.natamamdir,” Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 378. "' This was true of the eighteenth century: Russell, Natural History, vol. 1, p. 207.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 133 Reports vary as to the number of dervishes living at this lodge, but they consistently indicate that the Mawlawiyya was less populous than the ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Aba Bakr.** The common features of these two lodges set them apart from other lodges in Aleppo: both were located at some distance from the city, among gardens. Furthermore, built after Aleppo’s incorporation in the Ottoman empire, both lodges housed sufi orders new to the city, and benefited from official Ottoman patronage. The location of these two lodges was no accident. By supporting sufi institutions in previously deserted sites, the Ottoman patrons avoided supporting the shrine complexes patronized by previous ruling groups. The extramural location of the lodges indicates a self-conscious choice by the Ottoman patrons to distance their own structures from areas associated with previous ruling groups.

The spaces they chose outside the city were open and available, more significantly, they were not associated with the Mamluks or the Ayyubids. The patrons of the structures sought to associate each with Ottoman rule exclusively. Moreover, in the case of the lodge of Shaykh Abu Bakr, this association involves a particular faction of the Ottoman ruling élite. Indeed, while the local spahi Janbulad clan patronized the Mawlawiyya, their opponents at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the devsirme-generated fullar (slaves) of the Ottoman

state, patronized the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. Archival evidence indicates that even patrons who had supported Mawlawi lodges elsewhere favored Shaykh Abu Bakr in Aleppo.*® This suggests that many of the local intra-Ottoman power struggles of the period manifested

themselves in the competitive patronage of sufi lodges. As will be made clear below, competitive patronage may also explain the divergent choice of form of these two lodges: while the Mawlawtyya echoes

Mamluk forms, the Talayya of Shaykh Abi Bakr echoes Ottoman ones. Nevertheless, the paucity of resources for documenting patronage and building chronology hinders a fuller reading of this conflict.

” D’Arvieux, Mémoires, VI, 464: Mawlawiyya: 25 dervishes, Shaykh Abt Bakr: 40 dervishes. Russell, Natural History, vol. 1, 207: about 10 dervishes at Shaykh Abu

Bakr, a smaller number at the Mawlawiyya. None of the Arabic and Ottoman sources mentions a number for the dervishes. 3 As in the case of Okitiz Mehmed Pasha, discussed below.

134 CHAPTER FOUR Taktwyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr

The ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr is located on a promontory north of the walled city at a distance of about three miles. It was the most important sufi institution of the Ottoman period and for a time, the residence of the governors of the province. No local early modern figure has generated as much comment in the local sources as its founding saint. ‘The architectural integrity of the ensemble is preserved and still in use, even if its surroundings are much more densely populated today. This extraordinary structure, whose complex history 1s recorded in many sources, has largely escaped the notice of scholars. Sauvaget included it on his list of Aleppine monuments worth preserving, although he deemed it to be “without great archaeological interest.”** Not only does the continuous endowment of this structure by Ottoman officials from the late sixteenth century until

the collapse of the empire illustrate its 1mportance to the ruling group, but its prominence in local chronicles shows the relevance of this building to the inhabitants of Aleppo. Indeed, the taktyya may

have operated as a special site in which the Ottoman élite interacted with the local provincial élite united by the mutual reverence of a wall. from Antinomianism to Normatwe Sufism

The ‘Takiyya, popularly known in Aleppine parlance as “al-Shaykhu

Bakr,” 1s centered on the tomb of al-Shaykh Abt Bakr b. Abi al* Sauvaget, “Inventaire,” 103, No. 75, drawing: fig. 13, Sauvaget, Alep, 232, fig. 61, and 235, n. 894. Gonnella, Islamische Hetligenverehrung, 236-239, cat. no. 152. I thank Dr. ‘Abd al-Razzaq Moaz for allowing me to see the photographs and draw-

ings of his late father, Khaled Moaz, who researched the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr with Sauvaget and drew fig. 13 in Alep. The Takiyya is mentioned by a record number of travelers, in addition to those cited below, see: William Biddulph, “Part of a Letter of Master William Biddulph from Aleppo,” in Hakluytus Posthumus, or, Purchas His Pilerimes, Containing a History of the World in Sea Voyages and Lande Travells

by Englishmen and Others, ed. Samuel Purchas (Glasgow: J. MacLehose and Sons, 1905-07), vol. 8, 263-364; de Fermanel, Le Voyage d’Italie et du Levant de M. de Fermanel (Rouen, 1687), 26-27; Myller, 658; J. Barbie Du Bocage, “Notice sur la carte générale des paschaliks de Bagdad, Orfa et Hhaleb et sur le plan d’Hhaleb de M. Rousseau,” In Recueil de voyages et de mémorres publié par la Société de Géographue,

Vol. Il (Paris: Imprimerie d’Everat, 1825), 224. The obscurity of the site today is compounded by the fact that its neighborhood was a center of Islamist resistance to the Ba‘thist rule of president Hafiz al-Asad in the early 1980s, when aerial bombardment damaged the takiyya.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 135 Wafa’ (1503-1583), a personage emblematic of early modern antinomian piety.” He was a majdhiib (one enraptured by God), a category of Muslim saints, or walts (friends of God). No other religious figure of Aleppo has attracted a comparable volume of literature by distinguished members of Aleppo’s Sunni Muslim elite, still largely underused. I have discussed elsewhere the evolving construction of

the image of the saint in the sources, partcularly the manner in which the sources depicted the saint’s practice of space, his oscillation between architecture and the wilderness, and his inversion of conventional gender hierarchies.*° Shaykh Abi Bakr and the dervishes

who gathered around him in his lifetime and around his grave after his death illustrate the trajectory of a saint and his community, and of their complex relationship to landscape and the built environment in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Abi Bakr shunned the city and conventional domesticity, living in the wilderness at its edge and inverting his society’s rigid gender hierarchy. His follow-

ers formed a community of deviant dervishes whose antinomian asceticism rejected normative Islamic practice, risking persecution by

the Ottoman state. However, a few years after the saint’s death, these deviant dervishes adopted lawful behavior, metamorphosed into a respectable sufi brotherhood, and received the patronage of pow-

erful Ottoman officials. The tomb of Abi Bakr soon formed the *® An erroneous death date of 1496 for Abi Bakr, given first in Ignatius Mouradgea VOhsson, Tableau général de Vempire othoman, 7 vols. (Paris: [Firmin Didot], 1788-1824),

IV. li. 622, has been repeated by many Western sources, including Russell, 410, Bliss, John P. Brown, The Darvishes, or, Onental Spiritualism, ed. H. A. Rose (London: Oxford University Press, 1927), 269; J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford Univesity Press, 1998; orig. ed. 1971), 278, and Gonnella.

However, the Aleppine sources from the seventeenth-century, unused by these authors, clearly state the death date of 1583. I have found no indication that a saint named Abt Bakr existed in Aleppo in the fifteenth century. While these sources also use the term “Bakriyya” to denote the brotherhood at the lodge of Abt Bakr, this term is never used in the local sources. A few shaykhs of the lodge in the eighteenth century are given in the sources the laqab of al-Wafa’l, in reference to the

founding saint, as in Tabbakh 2, VI, 484-485. In some cases the brotherhood of the lodge is given as “Wafa@iyya,’ Muhammad Kurd ‘AIt, Ahetat al-Sham, 3rd. ed., 6 vols in 3 (Damascus: Matba‘at al-Nuri, 1983), 148.

* See my “Deviant Dervishes,” for a detailed list of the hagiographies of the saints and his successors. The most important biographies of Abi Bakr are in chronological order, Ibn al-Hanbali in the sixteenth century, 1:1, 394-395; al-‘Urdi in the seventeenth century, 32-35. ‘Tabbakh’s biographical entry of Abu Bakr, vol. 6, 110-129 quotes several earlier biographies, including the authoritative eighteenthcentury version by Yusuf al-Husayni (1662-1740), from his work, Muard al-safa@ fi Laramat al-Shaykh Abit Bakr 6. Abi al-Waf@’.

136 CHAPTER FOUR nucleus of an architectural complex that served as one of Aleppo’s most important sufi institutions and spurred the development of a suburban neighborhood. The community of dervishes that shared the saint’s antisocial ways mutated into the custodians of substantial properties, and became salaried members of the central Ottoman religious hierarchy, accepting its norms along with its rewards. In other words, they allowed themselves to be co-opted into the urban religious hierarchy and in turn transformed their wilderness retreat into a settlement. The son of the muezzin of the neighborhood of Suwaygqat ‘Ali in the heart of Aleppo, after attaining jadhba (rapture), Abii Bakr demonstrated his kashf (ability to see hidden things), and adopted the unconventional behavior of a saint. As fame of his miraculous deeds spread, people flocked to him to receive baraka (blessing). As reconstructed from his biographies, Abi: Bakr’s persona suggests a socially deviant

mode of renunciation that adhered to the recognizable “script” of a mystical personality, whose elements I have categorized as spectacular asceticism and spectacular antinomianism. He adopted poverty; he practiced intense self-mortification: he slept on sheepskins spread on the ground,” he pulled out all of his own teeth in one day.*® Abt Bakr never married, and with his followers practiced celibacy, or at least rejected conventional sexuality.*” Most importantly Abu Bakr forsook hfe in a conventional home, rather he chose garbage heaps, cemeteries and ruins as alternative dwelling places. Reports place him in or near the mosque of the neighborhood of ‘Turab alGhuraba’ or among the abandoned cemeteries to the North of the

city, in an area known as the Middle Hill.’ At a time of urban growth in Aleppo, the presence of Abt Bakr at the edge of the city is significant because sainthood was the pioneering element in the taming of the wilderness, followed by urbanization.’’ 7 al-Urdi, 110. ® al-Urdi 33. ® al-‘Urdi, ed. Abi Salim, 244. H. Watenpaugh, “Deviant Dervishes.” °° The texts refer to the Middle Hill as al-jabal al-awsat or more often in Turkish (orta tepe). Ghazzi 2, U, 353-356. ‘The ‘Turkish form of the name reflects the ‘TPurcojranian orientation of the area. ‘The Middle Hill is located between Jabal al-Ghazalat and Jabal al-‘Azam.

°' Omer Liitfi Barkan’s “colonizing dervishes” theory described the urbanization and Islamization of medieval Anatolia by Turcoman groups spearheaded by sufis, and their instrumentalization of waqf, in “Osmanh Imparatorlugunda bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakiflar ve Temlikler: Istila Devirlerinin Kolonizatoér

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 137 By haunting the northern periphery Abu Bakr distanced himself from the most important Muslim cemetery of Aleppo, Salihin, which featured the tombs of saints and dignitaries of Aleppo, representatives of normative Islam.°* Combing the hagiographies, I mapped elsewhere Abu Bakr’s spatial activity and discerned in it an alternative mystical geography of the city. The biographies recount anecdotes where Abu Bakr visited and interacted with other sacred sites, including the lodge of Baba Bayram, the coffeehouse of Aslan Dada (both discussed in this chapter) and the Khusruwiyya mosque (see Chapter 3), conveying the links between these sites. By contrast, Abu Bakr was never por-

trayed in the most central religious places of Aleppo, such as the Great Mosque, or the shrines to Abraham. In addition to asceticism, Abu Bakr violated social and legal norms. The intensity and permanence of his ascetic practices were themselves outside the norm, as most Sufis practiced asceticism at carefully tmed

and temporary intervals that ended with a return to productive life. Appearance and behavior comprised the two broad arenas of antinomianism. Ottoman society carefully regulated hygiene and sartorial conduct. The appearance of Abu Bakr and his dervishes included the shaving of the beard, piercing their ears, wearing rags, or going naked.** The transgressions of the early dervish community included the rejection of ritual requirements of Islam such as prayer and fasting,”* the consumption of unlawful substances such as “arag (an alcoholic beverage flavored with anise) and hashish.’ Additionally, they Dervisleri ve Zaviyeler,” Vakiflar Dergist 2 (1942): 279-362. This theory bears out in the urbanization of Ottoman Aleppo, with the caveat that it had been an Islamic city since the 7th century. I address this point in “Between Wilderness and Architecture.” *” A study of the burial places of Aleppine notables in the seventeenth century

suggests that the association of Salihin with normative Muslim figures with local roots endured, while many Ottoman dignitaries with Istanbul rather than local connections, as well as mystics, tended to be buried in the northern cemeteries. For example, Abu al-Yaman al-Batriini (d. 1636) and his son Ibrahim (d. 1647), both Hanafi muftis of Aleppo, were buried in Salihin, see Ghazali, Diss., 71-73, al-‘Urdi, 139-143, ‘Tabbakh 2, VI, 233. By contrast, the cemetery near the lodge of Abu Bakr became the burial place for Ottoman officials deceased in Aleppo. An ethniccultural division may also be at work: The notables buried in Salihin were Arabs, while Turco-Persians were found in the northern cemeteries. *’ On the saint’s nudity, see Biddulph, 263. Aba Bakr shaved his beard and pierced his ears: al-‘Urdi, 33. His dervishes shaved their beards, and wore earrings: al-‘Urdi, 47. On the significance of shaving facial hair in antinomian piety, see Karamustafa, 19. * Every biographer remarked on this except Ibn al-Hanball. »> On alcoholic beverages: al-‘Urdi, 110; Tabbakh 2, VI, 221. On the consumption of hashish by Qari and the dervishes, see al-“Urdi, 110; al-‘Urdi, ed. Abi

138 CHAPTER FOUR made a mockery of conventional domesticity by flaunting the squalor of their dwelling and admitting into it unclean and despised animals, especially wild dogs.°® Another transgression was Abi Bakr’s deviant use of language inverted hierarchies of gender and merits investigation. Using the Aleppine vernacular dialect only, rather than literary

Arabic or Ottoman used by the educated men of his day, the saint addressed male interlocutors in the feminine grammatical gender.’ Challenging temporal authority was a hallmark of the saint’s image, expressed in irreverence towards men of rank and power. In a provincial city at a time of centralization and consolidation, Abu Bakr combined the majdhib’s scorn of conventional hierarchies with the topos

of the local saint who dominated Ottoman officials through the strength of his esoteric knowledge, reversing imperial hegemony. When the judge ‘Ali Efendi from Rumelia visited him, the saint attacked him with a cane.°® Abu Bakr uttered an obscenity while

sroping the behind of Hasan Pasha (d. 1603), a well-connected Ottoman official from Istanbul who had just been appointed judge in Aleppo.” The majdhib also infuriated Aleppo’s governor, ‘Ali

Pasha b. Levend, who let lose on him a lion that he had starved for two days.*’ However, Abi Bakr, who like many saints could communicate with animals, subdued the lion.°! The defiance of temporal authority also appears in the biographies of Ahmad al-Qari (d. 1632), the saint’s successor. When the governor Nasitth Pasha attacked the dervishes with an armed retinue, Ahmad’s fearlessness humbled him.” Salim, 313; Tabbakh 2, VI, 221. The discovery of hashish as a hallucinogen was attributed to deviant dervishes, Karamustafa, 19. See Franz Rosenthal, The Herb: Hashish versus Medieval Mushm Society (Leiden: Brill, 1971). For a more extensive analy-

sis of the transgressions of the dervish community, see my “Deviant Dervishes.” °© Kurani, in Tabbakh 2, VI, 116, and 119, recounts the repulsion that the saint’s squalid dwelling inspired respectable Aleppines. °’ The expressions describing this deviance are, “yukhatibu al-rijal bi-khitab alnisa’,” al-“Urdi 33; “yukhatibu al-jami‘ bi-khitab al-ta’nith,” al-Husayni, in ‘Tabbakh 2, VI, 113. For a full analysis of Abii Bakr’s inversion of gender norms, see my “Deviant Dervishes.” 8 al-“Urdi, ed. Abi Salim, 244. On ‘Ali Efendi b. Sinan Efendi (d. 1579), see N. Ghazzi, vol. 3, 60. ”? al-‘Urdi, ed. Abi Salim, 245. On Hasan, N. Ghazzi, vol. 2, 40. ®° “Alt Pasha b. Levend was a patron of the Takiyya Mawlawiyya, see above. *! The episode of ‘Ali Pasha’s lion, al-‘Urdi, 33-34. Another lion kept as a performing animal in the suqs escaped his cruel master to seek refuge near Abt Bakr, Kurani, cited in Tabbakh 2, VI, 118. ® al-“Urdi, 111-112: The governor Nastih Pasha and an armed retinue rode out of Aleppo to exterminate the dervishes. At their sight, many ran away. Al-Q4ri confronted the governor: “There are three things you can do to us. You can kill us, in which case we will attain martyrdom; you can exile us, in which case we

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 139 The episodes of the inversion of power between the Ottoman officials and the saints always end with the official’s recognition of the mys-

tic’s spiritual superiority. The same class of officials became the patrons of the Takiyya after its transformation into a conventional sufi brotherhood. As I have shown elsewhere, the image of the mystic in the sources evolved to present a progressively more conventional saint who upheld

Islamic norms and laws.’ The shift in the image of the saint was paralleled by the transformation of the community’s wilderness retreat.

The shift was so thorough that by the early 1600s, the Shafi‘t Mufti of Aleppo could opine, “[Any] supplication at the tomb of Shaykh Abi Bakr will be answered.” This statement marks the final cooptation of the memory of the saint and of the community of deviant dervishes into canonical Sufism, accompanied by the transformation of their wilderness retreat into a wealthy dervish lodge which in turn stimulated the growth of a neighborhood. Normative Islam appropriated deviant piety as the city absorbed the wilderness. This appropriation occurred in the context of the movement in Ottoman society to neutralize, eliminate, or incorporate antinomian religious groups in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Remnants of deviant dervishes were absorbed by conventional Sufi orders especially the Bektashiyya. A sense of the transformation of the community of dervishes is conveyed by the biography of the saint’s Ahalifa (successor) Ahmad al-Qari, which centers on a narrative of change.”

After the saint’s death Ahmad led the dervishes in their antinomian lifestyle, shaving his beard, wearing rags, sleeping on sheepskins, will wander, or you can emprison us, in which case we will practice mystical discipline. Gan you do anything more to us?” The pasha, disarmed by the mystic’s fearlessness, asked for his blessing. This incident 1s datable between 1598 and 1605 on the basis of the dates of Nasitth’s (d. 1614 or 1615) tenure as governor. Mustafa Na‘ima, Tdrih-i Na%ma (Istanbul, 1864), vol. 2, 122-30; al-“Urdi, 59, n. 15; ‘Tabbakh 2, Ill, 178; Barkey, Bandits, 218. *§ See my “Deviant Dervishes.” ** Stated by ‘Umar al-‘Urdi (d. 1615), al-“Urdi, 35.

°° Ahmet Karamustafa described the unification and institutionalization of the mystical anarchic movements, especially the Bektashiyya, in, “Kalenders, Abdals, Hayderis: The Formation of the Bektasiye in the Sixteenth Century,” in Halil Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar, eds., Siileymdn the Second and his Time (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993): 121-129.

°° Preserved biographies of al-Shaykh Ahmad b. ‘Umar al-Qart: ‘Urdi, 110-113; a eulogy by the Aleppine poet Sayyid Ahmad al-Naqib (d. 1646), in ‘Tabbakh, vol. 6, 223; Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi (1651-1699), Ahulasat al-athar fi a‘yan al-qarn al-hadi ‘ashar (Cairo, 1868-1874), vol. 1, 259; Husaynt, in ‘Tabbakh, vol. 6, 110-129; Shaykh Wafa, Avwliya? Halab, and Tabbakh 2, VI, 221-223.

140 CHAPTER FOUR eating hashish and quicklime, drinking wine and ‘araq. Then, seemingly abruptly, the dervishes gathered around: “‘our wish is to have

a sheikh who can establish an order (mzam) among us.’ So they appointed [al-Oari].”°’ The biography then intercalates episodes in

the construction of the dervish lodge through the patronage of Ottomans with instances of adoption of lawful behavior by al-Qari. For example, after Isma‘Il Agha, the leader of the military garrison at the citadel, sponsored the water supply to the dervishes’ area, alOari’s men began to observe the five daily prayers.°? The endowments of the lodge soon grew, as in addition to the Pashas, Aleppines of various income levels gave awqaf of varying values to the fuqara’. The biography catalogued how the dervish community entered the structures of “order”: al-Oari bought orchards and houses as rental properties and established a religious endowment, effectively becoming the administrator of a Sufi lodge. Thus the causal link between obedience to the law and patronage of the lodge is absolutely unmistakable.

The acceptance of literacy and bureaucracy followed. Al-Qari set up an endowed library,°? and penned a biography of his master.’ In contrast to his shaykh, al-Oari was not an Aleppine, he was Iiterate and fairly well-traveled within the Ottoman domains; more

importantly, he spoke both Arabic and Ottoman Turkish, which equipped him to negotiate with the Ottoman ruling group. The succession struggle following his death in 1632 reveals how deeply the formerly anarchic community had become implicated in centralized Ottoman bureaucracy. Two dervishes produced documents in alQari’s hand appointing each as his successor. ‘The matter was resolved

only with the arrival of a decree from the sultan.” Between the death of Shaykh Abu Bakr in 1583, and al-Qari’s death in 1632, the main structures of the Takiyya had already taken shape. [he lodge soon became one of the most important brother-

7 al-‘Urdi, 110-111. 8 However, al-Qari continued to shave until his death: “this is how we saw our teacher [Abu Bakr] ...we will not take the path of the beard.” al-‘Urdi, 111. al-“Urdi, 112. Few of these volumes had remained by the early twentieth century, Tabbakh 2, VI, 128. ” Tabbakh 2, VI, 111. This biography, written in Ottoman Turkish, is lost. Information from it is reproduced in Husayni, but not quoted, making it impossible to get a sense of the original text. | al-Urdi, 112, Tabbakh, vol. 6, 322-324.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 14] hoods in the city.” The Ottomans in Aleppo had a privileged relationship to this lodge. An anecdote, not attested in the chronicles but preserved in the oral culture of the lodge’s neighborhood, may explain the attraction a wali such as Shaykh Abu Bakr could exercise for Ottoman officials.” When the Aga of the citadel found a treasure in the guise of a jug filled with gold coins, Shaykh Abu

Bakr appeared to him in a dream and commanded him to bring water to his Takiyya. The Aga obeyed the dream, using funds from the treasure. Malicious people denounced the Aga to the Ottoman Sultan, since the former had not secured the proper permissions for the waterworks. Shaykh Abu Bakr appeared to the sultan in a dream and commanded him to forgive the Aga, and to elevate him. ‘This

anecdote presents Shaykh Abu Bakr as a protector of Ottoman officials, one who furthers their careers, a patron saint of bureaucrats, as it were. This was far from the earlier image of the antnomian saint who insulted and enraged Ottoman Pashas. Patrons and Building Process

A building chronology of the lodge and its patrons can be derived from piecing together the hagiographies with epigraphic and archival records. Whatever the authenticity of the anecdote of the jar of treasure, evidence indicates that a certain Isma‘il Aga of the Citadel of Aleppo brought water to the promontory and built a gastal (public fountain) early in the development of the complex, probably in 1596.”

One of the four large domes of the complex, and the large courtyard was built by the beglerbesi Hasan Pasha b. ‘Ali Pasha al-Rand

” On the Wafa’iyya order, see Gonnella, Islamische Heiligenverehrung, 270. The

Wal@iyya in Aleppo is not to be confused with the order of the same name, a derivative of the Shadhili order, popular in Egypt and the Bilad al-Sham, which originated with Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad Wafa’ (701/1301-760/1359). For the latter group, see Trimingham, Sufi Orders, 49-50. “ Khayr al-Din al-Asadi collected this oral tradition from the neighborhood’s inhabitants, al-Asadi, Ahya@’ Halab, 257. The motif of the jar appears in al-‘Urdi’s hagiography only, but in another context, see my “Deviant Dervishes.” ™ al-“Urdi, 35. The date is given in Tabbakh 2, VI, 127. The undated Ottoman inscription on the qastal is quoted in Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 379. The qastal has been renovated and the inscription seems to be no longer in situ. For a plan showing the pre-modern water distribution system in Aleppo, including the area surrounding the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr, see Mazloum, Ancienne canahsation, unpaginated foldout map entitled “Plan du canal d’adduction”.

142 CHAPTER FOUR (Levend?), in 1601.” That the son of the man who had set a starving lion loose to attack the saint would later patronize the dervish lodge built around the tomb of that saint reflects the scope of the site’s transformation from an anarchic outpost to a focus of Ottoman

patronage. The handsome qa‘a, a domed structure preceded by a portico, was begun by Hamza, a lower-ranking official’ and completed by Ahmed Pasha Ekmekji Zade (“son of the Baker’) (d. 1611), a former governor of the province.’”’ ‘Ali Aga, the Aga of the janissaries, also contributed to the takiyya.” In 1029/1619-1620, the beglerbes&i of Aleppo, former Grand Vizier Okiiz Mehmed Pasha (15572-1620) rebuilt the saint’s mausoleum and constructed a tomb for himself nearby.” Okiiz Mehmed Pasha had served as Grand Vizier twice and was a ddémdd (royal son-inlaw), however having fallen from favor he was appointed governor of Aleppo, where he died.®° He was associated with the Mawlawiyya order, for which he built a zawiya in Cairo.®' In Aleppo, however, ” Al-“Urdi, 111, and Tabbakh 2, VI, 221, indicate that he built the great qubba with large columns, without specifying which. The date of Hasan Pasha’s tenure in Aleppo is derived from Tabbakh 2, III, 180; and Sdalname 1903, 81. Hasan Pasha’s father ‘Ali Pasha was a patron of the Takiyya Mawlawiyya, see above. ”° Hamza was a lower-ranking Ottoman official. His name is given as Hamza Buluk bashi in al-‘Urdi, 111, and as Hamza al-Kurdi al-Dimashqi in Tabbakh 2, VI, 221. ” Al-‘Urdi, 195; Tabbakh 2, VI, 222. Biographical entry of “Ahmad Basha b. al-Akmakyji al-wazir,” al-‘Urdi, 114-116, see also al-‘Urdi, ed. Altunji, 199. Al-‘Urdi tells us Ahmed Pasha was governor of Aleppo; Ghazzi 2, HI, 218, gives 1616 for his governorate, however he is mentioned neither in the Salndme nor ‘Tabbakh. ® Al-“Urdi, 195; Tabbakh 2, VI, 222. What he built is not mentioned. ™ Katib Celebi, Fedhleke, I, 402, indicates that Okiiz Mehmed Pasha was buried in the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. Al-“Urdi, 111, does not give a construction date. Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 378-379, incorrectly identifies Oktiz Mehmed

Pasha as the patron of the entire complex, without citing a date. Description of the structure: Tabbakh 2, VI, 222. The tomb of Mehmed Pasha was partly destroyed following an explosion in the neighborhood in the early 1980’s during “the trou-

bles;” the circumstances of the destruction were recounted to me by the family whose home is closest to the tomb of “Muhammad Basha.” Several nineteenth-century tombstones still stand beneath the ruined dome of the tomb of Okiiz. 8° Okiiz Mehmed Pasha (also known as Damad, Kara (15572-1620) was Grand Vizier from 1614 until 1616 under Ahmed I, and again for a few months in 1619,

under ‘Osman II: EI’, s.v. “Mehmed Pasha, Okiiz,” by A. H. De Groot; Islam

Ansiklopedist, s.v. “Mehmet Pasa Damad” by M. C. §. Tekindag. An incorrect death

date of 1002/1593 for Okuz Mehmed Pasha is given in Tabbakh 2, VI, 127.

Elsewhere, Tabbakh 2, III, 177, indicates that Oktiz Mehmed Pasha died while he was governor of Aleppo in 1593, confusing him with another Mehmed Pasha. The information provided in the Sd/ndme is inaccurate in this matter. “Oktiz” means “ox,” referring probably to the Pasha’s physical strength. *! ET’, s.v. “Mehmed Pasha, Okiiz,” by A. H. De Groot, discusses his patronage but seems unaware of his endowments in Aleppo, though he mentions the tiirbe

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 143 he chose not to support the existing Mawlawi lodge. His interest in the ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr was longstanding: a decade earlier, in 1610, he endowed a medium-size waqf in Aleppo centering

on a masjid in the Kallasa quarter, with provisions to benefit the dervishes of the lodge of Abu Bakr.” Two undated inscriptions in Ottoman Turkish commemorate Okiiz Mehmed Pasha’s and Isma‘il Aga’s interventions in the complex. Assuming the inscriptions are contemporary with the buildings they commemorate, they are the earliest in Aleppo written in the Ottoman language.” This list suggests that Ottoman officials of varying ranks were creating endowments of variable sizes for the lodge. By the time of al-Qari’s death in 1632, then, the takiyya had taken shape.” While subsequent renovations and additions were made to the complex, the central structures, built in this period, are the focus of our investigation.” Architecture and Urban Context

Distinct structural units, built and rebuilt at different times, constitute the ensemble of the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr, evincing a mixture inside the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr. Persons initiated into more than one sufi order are by no means unusual. * VGM, Wadfiyya of Okiiz Mehmed Pasha, Aleppo, 1019/1610, defter 573, pp. 31-34. It is the earliest waqfiyya for Aleppo I have seen which is written in part in Ottoman (with the exception of the earlier waqfiyya of Sokolli Mehmed Pasha, which was not centered exclusively on Aleppo). It puts up as waqf shops, two hammams and a coffeehouse to benefit a masjid in the quarter of the “Kirec¢qi” (i.e. al-Kallasa, quarter of the limemakers/limestone). There is no actual or documentary trace of this mosque. Among the stipends for employees of the waqf, an amount is dedicated to the fugara’ (dervishes) of the ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr. The document reinforces the notion that by 1610, the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr had become an important concern for Ottoman officials in Aleppo. °° The inscription of Okiiz Mehmed Pasha is published in Tabbakh 2, VI, 128. Following the destruction of the tomb in the early eighties, this inscription is no longer extant. In June 1999 I observed a fragment of an Ottoman inscription used in a makeshift wall around the perimeter of the destroyed tomb. The inscription of Isma‘l Aga is published in Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 379. Another inscription in this group of early Ottoman-language epigraphy in Aleppo is the anonymous Ottoman inscription dated 1592 at the Takiyya of Baba Bayram, already mentioned, quoted in Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 380. A later seventeenth-century Ottoman

inscription in Aleppo is at the mosque of Ipshir Pasha, discussed below. ** David, “Domaines,” 186, gives this date without explanation. Sauvaget did not date the structure, see “Inventaire,” op. cit., and Alep, 231-232, 235 n. 894. * For the structures added to the complex in the eighteenth century, see: Tabbakh 2, VI, 128-129; for the subsequent history of the surrounding area, see Ghazzi 2, II, 353-356.

144 CHAPTER FOUR of Istanbul-ispired trends and the distinctive local decorative techniques

(Pl. 22, 23 Fig. 9). They were originally surrounded by gardens and cypress trees. A low wall encloses the structures of the Takryya in the manner of Ottoman kiiliyes, as in the Khusruwiyya. Entering

the enclosure in the early seventeenth century, one would have seen the waterwheel, half submerged in a deep pit, used to lift water into the Takiyya.°’ The monumental structures of the complex stand in a row facing a courtyard, oriented towards the gibla. Some of them are contiguous and communicate through doors, yet their fagades signal them as distinct. The westernmost structure is the fountain built by Isma‘il

Aga, which has been renovated. It 1s attached on its east side to a structure identified as a qa‘a, a domed cube preceded by a portico (Fig. 9).°° ‘Two large columns of yellow marble and corner piers sup-

port the portico’s three small domes. An indoor pool occupied the middle of the hall, which the nearby waterwheel provided with water.

The dome featured a Koranic phrase (al-isra’ 84) repeated several times (this is no longer visible). Eight small oculi appear above the drum. Eight pointed arches support the dome. Four of the arches contain windows, and a continuous row of windows with graceful ogee arches pierces the dado. ‘The features that suggest a qa‘a include

the presence of the pool, and variations in the levels of the floor. Differences in floor levels, even when slight, reveal the uses of the space and the attitudes the body would adopt in this setting.” In *© The entrance gate bore the Arabic inscription, Fa-~udkhuliiha bi-salam aminin (roughly: Enter in Peace), according to Evliya Celebi, Seyahainame, vol. 9, 379. ‘The

inscription cannot be found today. Ghazzi 2, I, 353, reported that the minaret on the entrance door used to belong to the Madrasa Ramadaniyya and was taken to the Takiyya after the former was demolished. The minaret is still in situ; one assumes that prior to this transfer the Takiyya had no minaret. *’ The pit’s (gabi) depth was 20 bagh, Tabbakh 2, VI, 127. The waterwheel was moved by a mule: D’Arvieux, Mémoires, VI, 466. An early twentieth-century photograph from Aleppo shows a similar waterwheel: Mazloum, Anctenne canalisation, Pl. 7.

8 Sauvaget identified this space as a reception hall, a “Salle d’audience des Pachas,” Alep, 232, fig. 61: represents a longitudinal section of this structure, drawn by Kh. Moaz. A contemporary inscription has been placed above the door, naming al-Q4ari as the builder. *’ An indoor pool is usually a part of a qa‘a. However, early Ottoman “T-plan” mosques also included a pool in their middle. ‘They also included two large siderooms used for sufi practices (as in the Khusruwiyya), which is not the case of the qa‘a of the Takiyya. ” David, “Consulat de France,” Jean-Charles Depaule, “Deux regards, deux traditions: l’espace domestique percu par les auteurs anglais et francais au Levant,”

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 145 this hall, the floor sections closest to the walls (where people would sit to lean on the wall) are slightly higher. One would expect different floor patterns in a mosque, for example. While these features are consistent with a domestic setting, the domed portico is not usually paired with a qa‘a, but rather with Ottoman-style mosques. ‘This hall appears to have been a multifunctional space that combined for-

mal elements not usually found together: the room was used at different times of the day to conduct dhikr, as well as for receptions and audiences by the Pashas when the Takiyya served as residence and administrative center for the province’s governor. A hallway connects this structure to a room to the east that contains the tomb of Shaykh Ahmad al-Qari on its northern end, surmounted by a small dome. The facade of this structure differentiates it from the adjacent buildings. Its roofline is higher than that of the portico but slightly lower than the structure to the east. A band of muqarnas runs along the cornice. An upper row of two plain rectangular windows surmounts a middle ogival window, which in turn surmounts

two grilled windows at floor level.’ East of al-Qari’s tomb, a building that contains a small mosque and the tomb of Shaykh Abu Bakr juts out into the courtyard. ‘The exterior decoration unifies its various components: the lower half of the wall is covered by horizontal stripes of polychrome masonry, surmounted by a joggled stringcourse. A portico featuring two columns and three arches takes up a part of the lower section of the facade. Three ogival windows echo the three arches at the upper level. ‘The remainder of the fagade is occupied by large windows at eye level, also defined by polychrome masonry. The easternmost half of the building, behind the large windows, features the complex’s most imposing dome. ‘The portico leads into a hallway, whence one proceeds

south to an iwan that precedes the mosque. Alternatively, one can turn east, and ascend a few stairs to enter the domed mausoleum of Shaykh Abu Bakr, which along with the qa‘a, is built with handsome sobriety (Pl. 24). The dome, 11 dira‘ in width,”’ surmounts the In Daniel Panzac, ed. Les villes dans Vempire ottoman: activités et sociétés, Vol. 2 (Paris:

CNRS, 1994): 189-228. The fact that this q&‘a includes a small mihrab is not inconsistent with an Ottoman domestic context: many reception rooms feature niches. "! Closets in this room contained the remainder of the brotherhood’s manuscript

library until the 1920’s. Tabbakh 2, VI, 128. Today, this is still where the books of the institution are kept. ® Tabbakh 2, VI, 125.

146 CHAPTER FOUR cenotaph of Shaykh Abu Bakr. Black and white marble mosaic orna-

ments the yellow marble mihrab of this room. Marble lintels and carved stone lunettes surmount the windows which feature elaborate woodwork.*’ Horizontal rows of mugarnas form elegant pendentives. Beyond the mosque-mausoleum to the East stands a garden-cemetery, strewn with mostly nineteenth-century tombs, and featuring the domed mausoleum of Okiiz Mehmed Pasha (today half-ruined). Okiiz Mehmed Pasha’s Ottoman inscription, mentioned above, appeared on the door leading into this structure.“* This remarkable cemetery for Ottoman officials is the only one of its kind in Aleppo; however it was not uncommon for officials to use a famous dervish lodge as burial ground, as for example at the central Mawlawi Lodge in Konya.” The architecture of the monumental components of the Takiyya is Ottoman in its correspondance between the divisions of the interior and the decoration of the fagades, as well as the form of the qa‘a and mausoleum. ‘Thus it is distinct from the architecture of the Takiyya

Mawlawiyya, so reminiscent of Mamluk models. The ‘Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr’s format of various structures loosely arranged around a central courtyard also resembles Ottoman kiillryes—though it shares

this arrangement with the Mawlawiyya. While killiyes usually center

on a mosque, in this case, the design does not showcase a central structure: the tomb of Shaykh Abia Bakr has the highest dome, but the qa‘a has the most architectonically distinguished entrance. Subsequent to the construction of the Takiyya of Shaykh Abu Bakr, the area became a small suburb as the employees of the waqf settled there.”° Prized for its sweet air and the beauty of the gardens, the Middle Hill was considered a pleasant promenade away from the crowded city.’ Seen from afar, on the Middle Hill, the

"8 Tbid. The aphorism inscribed above the door of this room is quoted in Tabbakh

» “babble 2, VI, 127-128. In the eighteenth century, an additional room was built to the north of this one, containing the tombs of later Ottoman officials; an arch from its roof still stands. The mausoleum of Oktiz Mehmed Pasha was damaged during the early 1980’s.

»° [brahim Hakki Konyali, Abide ve Kitabeleriyle Konya Tarihi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basimevi, 1964). I thank Suraiya Faroghi for suggesting this comparison. "© Ghazzi 2, II, 353, classified this area as a neighborhood onto itself, the Harat al-Shaykh Abi Bakr. It was a quarter inhabited by Muslims only. ? “Urdi, 195. Tabbakh 2, VI, 128. D’Arvieux, Mémoires, VI, 62-63, describes an excursion that included a visit to the ‘Takiyya.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 147 Lodge of Abu Bakr in the late seventeenth century appeared as a series of cascading domes (Pl. 22).”° From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, the Ottoman governors of Aleppo used the lodge as an occasional residence, admin-

istrative center and burial ground.” While Ottoman officials were frequently interred in mosques they patronized in the provinces, they cid not often choose to live in a sufi lodge. Ever since Aleppo’s conquest, Ottoman governors had resided and held court at the Mamluk Dar al-‘Adl (House of Justice), also known as Sarayat al-Hikm (Palace

of Rule), west of the Citadel, which they occasionally renovated; additional administrative offices were located in adjacent structures.'””

While the Dar al-‘Adl continued to be used as a seat of government, the Takiyya of Shaykh Abt Bakr emerged as an alternative location in the late sixteenth century.'®' The retreat of Ottoman oficialdom from the heart of the city to a defensible location at its edge coincided with the Jelali revolts. At a time of instability, the lodge’s isolated, elevated site allowed its surroundings to be easily surveyed. Indeed, “all of Aleppo lying at one’s feet can be contemplated with relish,”’*’ noted Evliya Celebi, whose travelogue reflects

the perceptions of the Ottoman elite. This statement echoes the Ottoman predilection for staging privileged viewpoints.’ In 1671, "8 Photographs taken by Khaled Moaz in the 1930's, clearly show that the complex from the south appeared as a series of domes rising above walls; see also a postcard by Wattar Fréres entitled “couvent du Cheikh Abou Bakr” (undated, ca. 1930s, collection of the author). ” Barbié du Bocage’s 1811 map indicates that the Takiyya was still used by the Pashas for the same purposes, “Carte générale des paschaliks,” 224. ‘This pattern was apparently interrupted during occupation of Aleppo in 1831-38 by Ibrahim Pasha, son of Kavalalh Mezmed ‘AIi of Egypt. ' Sauvaget, Alep, 232, discusses the location of various Ottoman administrative offices in the city, without periodizing. There is no evidence for Pashas building

individual residences before the construction of Dar Rajab Basha in the Bahsita quarter in the early 18th century (Gaube and Wirth, Cat. No. 233; today only the facade of this structure stands). The Dar al-‘Adl continued to be used as the seat of government until the occupation of Ibrahim Pasha. ' Sauvaget, Alep, 232, attributed this to the fact that many Ottomans, fearing uprisings, retreated away from the city; Ghazzi 2, II, 353, and Asadi, Ahya’ Halab, 256, cite vague fears of Janissaries as a reason for the move. ' “Ciimle Haleb ziri payde temaga olunur,” Evliya Celebi, Seyahatname, vol. 9, 378. ' Gillru Necipoglu, “Framing the Gaze in Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Palaces,” Ars Onentahs 23 (1993): 303-342; and Lucienne ‘Thys-Senocak, “Gender and Vision in Ottoman Architecture,” In D. Ruggles, ed., Women, Patronage and Self-Representation Representation in Islamic Societies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 69-89.

148 CHAPTER FOUR when he wrote these words, those admitted in the enclosure of the Lodge could view an Aleppo transformed after almost 180 years of Ottoman rule. From this angle, the distinctive pencil-shaped minarets crowning the Ottoman mosques built in the sixteenth century appeared perfectly aligned. Evliya’s statement, then, reveals an ideal of Ottoman urban order. Evliya’s utterance signals that the Lodge, from being an antinomian outpost for the staging of a world-upside-down, had became a priviuleged viewpoint through which the powerful could gaze upon a conquered city. In other words, the deviant dervishes’ retreat had been thoroughly incorporated into an Ottoman visual grammar of power.

Takwya Ikhlastyya

Simultaneous to the construction of extramural complexes, Ottoman officials continued to support sufi lodges within the walled city. ‘Two of the more important examples are the Takiyya Ikhlasiyya and the

Takiyya of Aslan Dada. Neither of the intramural lodges has the magnitude of the suburban endowments. The Grand Vizier Arnavut Mehmed Pasha, also known as Taban1 Yassi (“the flatfooted”) (1589?-1639) built the Takiyya Ikhlasiyya

in 1634,'% to support a group of dervishes led by Shaykh Ikhlas (d. 1663).!° Shaykh Ikhlas, who was appointed the first mutawalli of '* Tabam Yass wintered in Aleppo in 1043/1633-1634, when he evidently built this complex, before going on a campaign against the Safavids. He was Grand Vizier from 1632 to 1636: EI’, s.v. “Mehmed Pasha, Tabani Yassi,” by A. H. De Groot. Kunt, Sultan’s Servants, 131-133. The biography provided in Gaube, Jnschnften,

178 is inaccurate (he confuses ‘Tabani Yassi with a sixteenth-century governor of Aleppo, also named Mehmed Pasha). The Aleppine sources refer to him only as “al-Arnaut.” Ghazzi 2, I, 303 correctly notes that ‘Tabani Yassi1 never held the beglerbegilik of Aleppo. The Arabic inscription which gives the construction date and the patron’s name, is quoted in: Gaube, Inschriften, 56, No. 100; Ghazzi 2, II, 302-303; Tabbakh 2, VI, 317-318; Shaykh Waf®, Awliya’? Halab, 26. ' VGM, Wagfiyya of Tabani Yass! Mehmed Pasha, Aleppo, 1045/1635, defter 979, p. 275. One of the expressions used to honor the shaykh is “zubdat al-atqiya’,” (“the butter of the God-fearing’”). For a biography of Ikhlas, see ‘Urdi, ed. Altunji 263-266. Tabbakh 2, VI, 316-317, reproduces the text of al-“Urdi. Shaykh Wafa’, Awlya’ Halab, 26-29, lists the shaykhs of this lodge. The use of the term “nazil” in the Aleppine sources suggests that Shaykh Ikhlas was a stranger to Aleppo. The name of the shaykh appears in the waqfiyya as: “al-Shaykh Ikhlas Dada b. almarhim....al-Shaykh Nasr al-Din al-Sadiqi.” For a biography of the successor of Shaykh Ikhlas at the head of this lodge, Muhammad Ghazi al-Khalwati (d. 1670), see Tabbakh 2, VI, 325-326.

THE DECENTERING OF PATRONAGE 149 the waqf, belonged to the Khalwatiyya (or Halvetiye), an order associated with the Ottoman empire.'”® This, and the fact that he was a Hanafi,'’’ must have attracted the Grand Vizier’s patronage.'®® In addition, members of Ikhlas’s spiritual szdsz/a (chain of transmission) were associated with Ottoman rule; Shah Wali (d. 1604), the master

of his master Qaya Jalabi, was a soldier in the Ottoman military before dedicating himself to the Sufi path.’ By 1635, the waqf of Arnavut Mehmed Pasha provided Ikhlas and his dervishes with a complex in the Bayyada neighborhood to the northeast of the walled city that included a mosque and a takiyya, domed and preceded by

porticoes, centered on a courtyard along with a lutchen, a cistern (sthrt7) furnished with water from the canal of Aleppo, and a sabil.

© On the Khalwatiyya order (Halvetiye in Ottoman), see EI’, s.v. “Khalwatiyya,” by F. de Jong, pp. 991-993; Hans-Joachim Kissling, ““Aus der Geschichte des ChalvetijeOrdens,”

©) Mosque Aslan Ue - S\\

} 2al\Dada \\ Citadel y)) 5 {| ; ——$_

saa | oH ,! 4

a os a 3 2

ae - 0 100 500

We Salihin Cemetery

Fig. 8. Map of Aleppo in the seventeenth century. After J. Sauvaget, Alep, Plate LXII. Redrawn by José Luis Argtello. Important City gates: 1. Bab Antakiyya, 2. Bab Qinnesrin, 3. Bab al-Maqam, 4, Bab al-Nayrab, 5. Bab al-Ahmar, 6. Bab al-Hadid, 7. Bab al-Nasr, 8. Bab al-Faraj, 9. Bab al-Jinan.

oH EL Aba N [7 Lp

H ooo all: a

ESS a,=2 :

.STa

cones aiitaccaee! i ees Pa 7

E2

=| 3 f eIaob \hat 2 reste Hl B ac] pecan TTA Z E meeererrrrere tH £ : ATT eee eT f 5

il} Wey Lt z = | | Hh =a 4 er

| aaa i = S AN ye-aatt et Hi | Nie pes “) © Hig “i HB S©

i1 iHSS OThe [N+] 6S Eo iil it i | Bee ! % P ) ‘Sneee AU RS | il | 2 S What wee TTT = B LETT nna is= S oF =o Op ee ee

NS) at tt 2 HTT INGSETITTIT) LN | ae

. y4aj 4); sf/ = Py, 77ea/ /a/\-w/ | Y/)p, > | ]/ y Li Uy Yy yy = '— A if | / / y

/ Mp a Si . M ae ,’ =(|i SON yf 4 P A: ; "a: /“\ KN byes \ -,Te, 2a) 7

.

the | Q - |

i} ;tex, Kp. 4od\ + 4. } ih)FO } i Bae / / ; —— a—: al eeKL / ) fy MY ~Y

ey) aR a i) ee L a oe, L RY A “hey : 7 2tgSne i ~S [ { yy Y/ | iy § 5 & q ® f;

p ipan, a ys Se aqfRL LUC) rn LU mk ae: - Sfae:YY yi Bey f Wya Qa qe

J ~ 3 [SJ : Wi Mp & fi: ET yy, |

So RS oT SORA

~a 2 UU PY. ow. yy iy ) i] Ee pg? ea id) ann , ‘we 9 ; 5 | : ' 4 .

i;

| * rey i: i yif' E ! Hi if ——

jees|x:ee72vei ui i ES SE | | eee ee |ae a ooo ” . . > “ am Va 4h ARAL AAR SA AATAALABAAS AA SASH BAAAMIAR ADL T Ebi ate t tay te eu te ret Ue tae eS ES URS EAR SLSR LRAT RAE ey Ss

Bareii? AFRTACEEMM Adis 1 Rana MUU NAC TT OO OTS sk Ea cay ors So ue ae gu Ly Ad PA RD ne bi TELE] LESTAGRRAD AREA ARARARAGRARARS AAAS AN AAP AAPA SREP CAA TARERAR LIA MAARPAARARLD OF RAPA AA ARE!

ae- i*|S DaeGaae| .2a Pe UUia ; - ead ee eee ot 0ihewie ; i :oS ae bE Oe ne : aeaS”) mo yes

. feise fee |2||| Gt denejo(Meanie --—}-- 258 a am _wt OUR —3 ++BEE aa a...| Rhee. | RReRe | ON BS | tare 7 £agenne meeeGe ree poet Te

- ~ ; .te“i; ‘ : ; 4o- : &A aad f

| ay ate mes: |) Seana porns ern s ca.) Seedbp name a ‘Sheee rie IEPA Bias < MEARS) ad — wht1+8 :mmf a LiRoe a raorti ea a pi iis _ CREEL 4 ee aD Pee eT ROR Di Sa eh SCSI SR - w% J

Fig. 14. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Elevation of coffeehouse. From: David, Wagf d’Ipsir Pasa, Pl. 25.

c

ae a! x . 7 " . oe m=, —oor ef Bere: [7 Li

7—=Z Yy

Y

|

0) 5 10 m Se ee ee ee !

Fig. 15. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Groundplan of mosque. From: David, Wagfd’Ipsir Pasa, Pl. 21.

ee ' ( \ i es | . = SS

1g:|f

borate” bo Pera? | ee St Peee DEY |

— ae SE eRe eee ee ee re ree ee ee fa

Fig. 16. Complex of Ipshir Pasha. Elevation of mosque. From: David, Wagf d’Ipsir Pasa, Pl. 22.

" eects oa ie ' MALOD ALEEIL ipsa "eg ae AEE ROG / Bai bs£3

Y¢Z ‘ ahtyJaafeYoma Ae LEILA a‘\xif Ss;feos e RON OREO ¥ :Y “a‘ & Paae b7Yh‘ \ x J \ 47i g;t Sea —eoyy

A \. - Po 7 ‘2 A \ ‘ 2 fai —~ f

3 x BN BSS x aw Pad : aN ie Sy hee P Sate, ‘ \ fo 4 BES ! Ng(om ie ot rs ie VA Ciatapae Zi pad 1eaeyw i Ae a SB d «5°.» weeSithsinsnenmalaclabpal ribet et seas pry Et TA \fs: ‘a ie) MO, WE Soe oy ee ee SSR eee et ae =i eae = ei errant Soo) eee it; ee HG Fetedeacts | sears cs4 A a, pa8Scaoe Gil} soll aeizszen Milica |p eT Pei iHh] PR wt Ne uf { if at RA a {i} ti | ’ Beg | wo

xX ae rrPRE rat aU Safina Rae Hon RaTH Eb Ube OE| Bibs 8; >Ba \Y Mee ees. Serb RE baitsBETTE if iaid Shr eaa tie Te me be ifmy iftea i i |reneged visi — — , ~*/ So Tra ed Rated Tt Hod ay ee BS i ‘(edb Mpa ME (ns ut Aer it SAGES NSS eae — ae Fae P 1 SPs! ead ddetiaytt ie —} fj} 2 ~ |S | | SSS oN ;meEy Nie Ne ij : 4 ae Soi ig {based ren ot ; it Piss Pe i{ Aleta | i teal JOO ; NS ris so j } iy psa ial aa Pi eee aes | c= - adi hn armemeirean menayeay npeinninoratiy ptbesiopece s as | i Kane : a i b4

= SS oa an RaRiis rR ee (eset Fett a J |i a2— Be haces hy ~ == a oe aot be ~ 5 :HN” y’ mer S ue.“7 Be? | Heer agTET oatLL $3)pLEee | #!esSet i i eee ‘i” Z NES mm ii FAN x Al iY || itai oct! big fbSirYaa He ¢aeoxc NI se BRESooe. Sree die are Ay eeeUT AHR Sse aelesen Bie = “i] Be} Le Sa a aa (GSS Su) |i Fae a cy | PN A S

FA Ss rw P. / } i oh arses mammoner 1) 6 | SENS aay) i ome a ti be. si be = -- q

\ a The P 4WAT mh VAL stant tem al tie (Corer. od tees cere edeseca se = me Pp i oO 25: ;NZ bdRe,>‘ Ny 4 ih HK | resent en-—— - a i“tt of oe ee Mileage eal ra) Ss | oe Pe i Ss oe . SLL Bh | AAS Ha BHT Hiipt | | ij ji of 8 OSSSOeee MOOAKAe

Ze : x j i 3°

lcci @ ! ' ESs 3 ke ¢ : AZ as { beste 4 AVE ~ Gy 4 Ss Z Ly MS \WAa = et SS 7 ONS AG —_, | we ee NWN Li — 4%: j SENS Ce; WY | ei, aa j Jy: 7 Se =we ——————S t| fi) 1 i } Ay ao $ Yj KON kK 4 Sas < eS 4 ke © il !

/ | oS er,

1|'1 Cif | | ROSS CLu f | RSs ae Vey 5 Peas £F RSS | xX a 3 SEN iy i roan SX xX '|;yy WU \ / i * Oe a SSAk j Wij. i “ E i : iS SNS beat GZ : 4 4 ae RN i a BB ms | inoned SKE . Visa \ h SANS H — Gf Ba foes 0 Fee ES |hen aes | Baa = aw fy, , = €3) 4 RASS oCG; feee. “fi y. (eae) | f—_ Nspars ae aioN *REN | XS jTr Mp | RS ‘i.1 < - WS Sa VIN SS ca \ ama.: = \® “e HANN, ENfi!RING Yrwen 4'= 'QQ NN NY rs) SA St! cot NS eae: anaes ee ~ “ SN A nce waracavins p 4 2a ves NN : WMH ? z Le | Sy, «8 X — b ciaceal Te Lj warne ond ~ < \ eee ee | WS oS |5:/' \~NeSS) TY \ RQ ee IN 1 Ss oN ; of \ 2 t 1 RSS 5) NLaied ae anN i i4| WS i — PBS Mean 'NY NS . 22

:t Ci, Wy TERE RASS ihyRRS awsAS NY SUNG. }f ESAN | SUNS aSSNSSAR >WEA & SS SSS .

{ i SS

TA——— eA YY Gjs~a BREN JLO—LP, wai

eee n a if4 \ie ; a |Pia BRE in oo © re ioe % F| aS| papers CNet \TEAS by’ i Fes oe4aSS y SS

~ POPE aL wae Sage be - He bis - SSO

Shet ekaois ee ageen ow lone ARKye 5S ‘ RW SAS eee eos aoeatap , XN 2 :|t--~% N i ag j 4 Ps # \\ & Ef Fae rab tess i a aoe MS CO AK fy Sh aitort ees ue! reliS GD Sr lfS| |SS '4 Hfae A SS if < S: Qn t i ; ; eee ; RAS SSS ee NG cme sey SES 3 eh | y ' RSS Cy i a % ab “ill SS 1 1» RSS i mares fet A ean 3 i) | ae RSS | _{ sai esac Gh oo | da | eras ‘ ;ee :'i|SX RWS Si \SC SS Yr i | sag ! SS t : LAS es' :‘Pat $4 FeWeen TSae TE. 33) [tsese soak FSS NAG ; WW ‘ ih tees i ; RS rs WN ' 1 | lf ; ; WS AE ! omg ;' ;ARENN iRa 52Were | |NS NSfast }tYa " = - ch wee :| =Se - Eeacee >SS SSSpacar . aE| \SSN os |U== Te

SS 1 i SW :ii| RNGa»r SS { ' a, ; ee CS = N i \ RSS . i = SS SSS !!ieee } SER. RAS SSS |

MS ot fs hee Al 4 \ = NS ns A RSS \-'+iNS i| ! ' 1 f NN t TF ben, : | ' SX C3 ~ my fe RM \-> won SUING RON ee GT) SS Le aaa Seas \ 2 PW 4 Rees ies. emt Fan Peaee | : ! WN Bi N ae oe ' ons SS SWS 4% a es,AS ~ ao)c \GAST boy aa boy plied: A f-4tVm tTat 28 ’ cee ys WSs ,Ss : QW AE: SX

:t + 1‘ J''iaad = SS

MAY N SAO WS SSSsq LAV WESAK SINK Wy WEE WSs . y WS INGSSKG WN LAXOO WAS@Q“7 NSSWQS WRAQ SASSAA SANSSO NSS ' NN SS eS | 0 Shes DRS . FR

!:1| \ie :; 1;‘Bi =a} ‘ : iS CN eees ran ! | ww 14 i) 2 ' 1 y sonra ENS RA ae : SEN Se renee Re eee | SN NS * ,ai CS ii mig i SS SSE as! . ASS No \ OX ' we] ! SS Sk f i.Sg

‘ © «+e ry eer Q ’ § we. / Entrance 3: 8 3 HH YY en a A oe He , mt el °.ilZ;Li. ei ft a | ponenaaond eg --) : 1 ; os J on Weed ec © ” 3 ge ta. |]|ba } = ae S42" > ba as te is { | ; gt ; q ah Sis 3 mE z :; 5“af ‘ ‘ 4 Bs 1=10 i) Ym . aaa A =

Pee Se 7

m Soy;

,-oe° :.J ae =a;e.serdaae, a . iN ae oe es ee = =Dd os — ws p s*s

Oe?

: : Oe ESSE EP WT SC IA Se CRORE 2

= & = = 7 = © oo = =o = SS mee we:~~- aPd=va78« ~‘ rg a 3

* _ = o re ory ** SS = = 2 ~ = = — = - 4 n

.

a | i} LJ } Fig. 19. Khan al-Wazir. Groundplan. After Muller, 45, ill. 44.

Vile seins anawinianaies CONTR 1SS bag a ne ha rnwe or}ae | CT Lee Se te I WS es, aSe oe i ees

C iia |e mrti cM Trini , 4 mo 7 ee pony fe Oa Tian pee 3 (aan Tanta 9 AE: GSS Gee’ ae. 7 pry Of PO Nr BY hy sani, vs ae J chen snognerrerebenrynaedary sey yt ee - —d. _—— Te 9 eee ean mennrnnnnnnnn nen = los Winewdas pare pee barre SSS “Scanner st s oo ~—* enn generar LD pers oor aes Se re ~ a ;

a i a a GS i a cht eed fe a eee ee a co ee ee | eee +4 es! em Hk Lit SMC! ieee! SS 4 i oo EO: ate ne po us ci hye | See eee Bs rhe oe ee Renee OS . , bey pnUae hdees gay] Soe: Ok ne essa2aee eeen2 oo See = ee Dee 2 dis oe iens SR SO Moeees eevee eae eens SouSe Sens ee ee aa SE eee ee ee be , i, aeDee ti Deer is . :

ee ee eeFR. Yn GY, \\ cement TE ee tee i162: i'ee i] a of e a es | i ‘ ee 2 ee | ry 1 eee ee ee ee T mi } a : a: | }

} j ee: i \ Cieasssate? | ee) foe Laes a i ere tf |j a ewes i i | Ty Ty] l ie ee a -_—s | r | i | ‘oe | a ot ee a a [T_T Cy ERE Oe ee ee Oe a ee eee | oe: Se Se eee ee eee | ‘Seer, Be cae BS (a a\y! Oh Sea Se mB ¢! Re SN) Is ! Ces GS ae

- Ty as i SR ce: 0G | SS SSS a ee 4A Rid me Ce Os Coens es! A) El: SMe ew aeeeecs Coes Ue Cee Smet A cemeets Oe > bey ne eeny —T Sees om a I eS ae | | sien = wet rit a | Sienenes tae aie 1 or SST 4 A 7 c 3 7 aed ae} opilbiiniaiiode é ' , = = -

} ' | I Ir ee | “t su bal Wee aaa | = SERS: i Py T bd bd eg agen BEHE ~ ayy + ——ty aS ee F _... - Suen all GREE a se aaanEEE See SS A -3

i EE SA EEN | Sie SERIE Vere INUIT OOIOTD Canes Winsor Unent SSRIS Cnn SNe Oe Se ECAR oi HRESSee CMs a Seer CoD ees Ra SOAS Sere Poe CER: Goes REEESSED evens Gave Menem Wan Om ;

ooh eave ——rT cae ease ooo r i ~-—— T dng Tr 4y aay S a 7 mene OR aan iin en ——— a i er ar — ae S aeenine ARO Tae . —_—4 biaSS |SeeEien sees om eae: Dee Sime: & , eee seer Ee Ric) ee ee es ee Senn Mn en ("2s

‘ decamemestanih iatemmenen sin Aap rere or ene: ERE | alee oo S phrase a Sees eoneracchny pwede T ty 1. — OT ESSA 0 ]peTSpayer «erent Te oTT __| rT | 2ERE a, Ae TI ] rf; | T Ieee| :RYiFrees ‘ea| a|ppeeee a | BF sais \_| sitet 5)a+ —eet 7 =Sige ogSl) oo eto, RR 7. #SS! Sy ‘ Sete PS hoe3asAe Mt TAY Pe" OeyGp wh gle Bee ER Reo Syne Sous2SOR fae BEY NS 7 beer (oe RT By *. aa :. . BR pEUUP :eB TE tae 1‘al -ges SE :“sae By Bae 2{ee Beg LOT Te st Bee, iiektometieeee aetelde MOseaETS Sw tatty aay Bo *i yo.aMaho a Ee a Bee ee ag Oh a8 fod fo) ia. veer aaete,Be Sa fo SAT Gd: SSR ASEaren ES . Faeeps oa SS SE z : nn et

ne . : MER ee ee ee. § tee eT a in : OE ° : Bites :

ghwop,.Bba oeSES SMM ertcegitnc getee RES GinYoU | 5k aM OMSSBSS * Sy ae ve _ Bye Bye Sauget oySOR ase usaNRESD Se Rey Bo eet SSE BMene gk Seman? i; a ais a Bey as :ET! RGSS. -,-,a Baw. SECS SSO wae Mee a ety LSP = ,eRe ogi, Bo Sere, eeeae eeSab eeUE eeetanae BrSeeScepan, ae Og SC. RN ie eee . ae- fe . COWRA BER. |< ee aEOE, aa AO est gs cc ne! oe Rass 8 SSR os.en Re CEE eS TS

Se7Se MID Eevee ie ee a RS RCfsBY BA SBege puesete GNe Se Ra OCs. oeEs SEB Boo As Aree. EST RSS ERE SON saa BS ea EMER BSS San ad agi apie .

ake LORIN Speke oea 2eeSettee Sa A ene ~ .: :: we *Eeeee SeeRe ae a Co pas!SERPS > VSR,5SLE agin: :eR le an HE, oe Ae rn .we, Fi me eS! = arty! Bae Mage RS ve a

.e ee. a 1p 2 IEE ie Cahier wee, tas nee BOA root os,

PRIS Ss ERE OP SOE Rte. Soy,

AER EIS RE x8 a ‘OG ety Ue Beg botany wet Rhee :’..5:2fos ykga SS Ee asLEER re By oS (ees ~* olhee EE ae BLES . : ts eee aye ta . tybatt SAeras ORS ae , re moo me eee ee, Sa war SES ‘ . ’ . OD es SERS wi BOGS qPo,sethet 8bieDF 8aee he . “Ber Sl ORSo OS Sdeae OO et SAS SU ONE OS ORAL EE oa oa re rd

EWE bg one ag j / cu es See pe a ia : “e Pe Glo ccys ee tl PRA RsSe Seas PAE Tose SL eek r* re whe Ne tea EE, Brae SA pes BA RRS ee eee ee Cn ener . Es ee Be ae 7 SES PSs camera ment a weds . oo, ws a i = e8CS 7 NG Usama 2c Mio Sat Elias Rite Xe nace Len : “ pe Bee oe ae. ee re oe a if

che vate “ONS OS Saptianay eam rte wotelcrin, mms hai f Reena Piece

ar ad! oureet i ONS irrc a Boas i, SeRR EssEa weaca SiGe Wee: :a~) ; whagig 7 6: SapOS ck op ree ELSRR SEAMS catty Sear a ,+3: sede gS SR ae - - fe arsgoSENS MER feCRBS es&SE SOTR ach aah. aoe Set wh. pn Sees: Cetin ate FEU eZasa0 gs 25 :ceSee ;

es ie, (SSD See a i ary :

phwe, we©ge Peek: Bey8:Bae . REE ihefsbo coed As Sel ee Ce .*eué: hie. +" ee ee . &MbelgtsSie geet } Be ReConn et otLsSR eR a RL PY ee iba Rac nines tale gE a a ee eGo pol er _. . art 0 SER ee Srna Wg Ye eee ce Ft SAI, gg IE Soe Pi i t oe a . . . Sees Bite Wee ES i ate . >=a . oeee\=e Ree OE en: = eo 8) ig Tagg Seeee RN nyiis: ee na)enaeee aa Moa Se aie ., Pee eee (ide Oho go oS lai ee Es: MM mo PEE S28 BEA & 32st re = aS, pee aera ne : tel 2 Re Bas eS Pl RRR eo RY pe WESEBBS F oe = = hb -eeoy RR rswa2 :moh . .Me we fe Po henLEBER or EE a352Se ST LPonsSUE went See Oe Beeeag BLN el TIN pee SG.:SY Sor) : oe odes lace Raced. aeielest ESee ey: pee eeeSee E Be oe ue Leees = Pn a tg ad Be SEE EERO SetteEa Big” ak Et, ORE BORER: BGP

EO RE oS a oa Bp ETS Be Ok el aw Us kee ie eh Be oe Sa IE wet ea

eee xton ge ee — ee or aeToes cogESayee 288 Ue 4 ee ee ae ane pike =AR, pes BSA < . Peas : Aya ONES es Ra nus se wtblal@"t. a mtec Sune al, Ue geteeDea. ote, Be

;‘ Peo: adt BSaeodeme ee OSes aeoteaeeeBN eeeee aoe : Bee rae he pk ac gh eyo aero a Bock Be ou wees Ext Gy oe : ete UE Ota = oe . we : : . : “ iat oan 3 BER EE SE Gs a : Bae eal ifs # er ee er eect See we cr een |: my i bis ~E aap eweee peer Rag Be es En en eeMikea -ge)DeS>)yegg od aeBO we iitce) KRM: peesBe| enna eee .hey SEE Wes ticlee ee ut>PIERO age | BR “ : . -whe eA BeON els Se I Syend FSSOe SaRhge ey, one Cee Sree gh Aria Cts toe wre, oy . .. se giles Bove OES Se ele ee te thl@ to ma, Sy Ce atte ig EE EER Sn eS . eeReo 5)TE Bow: Tae ne8eee ee BeeES ee : 5aeRe oaBent :Lk Bas wey ee iat ‘So. MOAR See er assRinses Re Peeo gotFe dhe 38. *Lee eeBo aA : ”ES. Beecee ayeees Ra RES Ak eae ereHoge. of ox

ailshace iB Be £88r MPS: BA whee RED OND PET she:Ps oe ag, ae 2OF EA nee saat es Sn i a PeieACN ae ' ‘ES a ee Be aSOe lakhs Bas cof wet * Se eee Bleee “ie Cres Bee pet ot wha oe: :4_.| egies Cs ps neemoe > aEe. aa 1 BEoeBSdea ok gn a

Pah, EER eS le i; noo, Loosr%ThBrook. bs . . Beek 8 ow, BE. RBBB Ee eee. SCS pag ae eeeReBleae a woe . . aeafesEo&a Sig - athe, Somegks7wee Pl ped 2 eecad eekage ae a ean es Sosy

SOD SPE Bods £8 got ee : : Wee EBs ag ADA, Se ae a GER TCE | Bg BE TEN yo OPH ce mache eeu atgthed ed Ber vadee: 28S

GRE es .Asow wr oy ee Whew Siar 3 :8neoe gitese sd Pe: (2 ttcule: fas realli ee Mae MAME: oo“vs Lee. Ue. :Se SR*nn Se: nd te at SgML Ae ane oo, Me Suet: eee na ae | eeaie ae eas a aves *. hee cas aM rege BeVee BNE REeae Loe: SON on She. : "re BoBh ee-Ao a on Aes| Shae: be cS ne Oey 308 qa

a“ot Et OL,ce aAwu ate Fale |Oe a SE ORE behtee okTE wba) EET ae: 2 eben ae ersTe eres "i? RS . AN: cst EeAaa Gp Gs Bs - ayySS 2me Mae *Rsee Nee :eset = yegNRE TEBe epBer a Pegg a ge wah Uh BR 2 Wed UME 3wei fe ie wee er ,oeBee sy gee atpei DeSie ahefeoak: C3: ee Oe? ahpaeg he e& speetigGL “oo iti:can Ewe’ ThOMe, Wh faaceCR

MSSoot eeePeet che ae Sy RQ ayTeSOB eeeaee ‘ne nay eMBe 2 SEa ve aeaor |le Sat eae ; on ces Rey nw.ee CS Sole, ERA aaegee RO eeABS eSBy fe etgkee AOe teuwi Sook, ae ae. aAE PSS eeaes ee7!BEE eeosict Fae re en ene sO Sun paRe RyER &, eeee SeeSe ge PH Meaty tae ooitNES Tapa bo. ; ec ae#‘

we ELE yeh RE) ae ee Sead sped:fae Boe Be. PS ISae go ES ney).aetoy SO enT MMs: tomes re ee 3.eek a ac Ce re een eeetsree “ art eRseePe ESgo“Se TRE eSeeIE tOCURR § ca.CMECU 2 z or: Se a= EN

. . vn a .Qeary 3 Gate oy As “Re q me ewft SES Ee. ta Pt, eaeee aes a . -ESeeibeMe r: seh . seatee Reegke SCP LRP RAE a BE oe BO FimRQM ene BF sus Byes ee Pe ree Doge DA he, MA Ll ee BT dhiglt., — Soon oe cbt oc 2EN oo ae.

: Se ESbop “se y .BE anTE alea i“ edthe thd a% SoPp ate *!BB :AL ease agrs ee aCae a SESS Pee poe au bec Noles a. ‘Se au toe Bm esta OE St ede boss Wes Ee :Pt Me Fok eee) ee.i we Mer ee no NO SL atee ie ‘a aro SQ te vt iC Sa: oy: }: Soy iyaay Poy i aeS 8eeeae

.* eof re MO 53 “het | oot an’cya .veeao : awet keek.Rn econ io got Se Se a TUB be ae oe,.we BeCRE yeti BM ne . ys aths EgoF Weoh es4Sb Rg ob { RE. US. eeEt ; gs Sgn Stgat i ks F3OT ORae tery eRe. Pe ae Sr PkCot BR Fgh awa:Behr nie a |ath ; COE GA OAL gd: ak TERR 2 anes SS. & sos SOA | _ , ae ey 7 ¥ OSs 3 ‘ a ARE bg et fe Ta : 4 es ee: ae . 2 IPRA ES oS RR ROR Fy VR er ee ken we ge PS a Pee ee ote Sas _ Oe ES Sp oe RS eek 2 Jp Op. S) oS AUS ee tok ‘se we! . . ge. A ee a. oe & ae: an 2, Ke a : mo \ . ; tee ae yee at j ss ay eee toe ae be aye My ten a BE Geek Sa Sa Be Bee rE eg iy ewes ohn Se Box oP ae Bel SS pete De i ., J Mere we oe} raenaee RN Oy See coe gee Es _? 2 okt ie 8dES aed-4e voy‘UR ey : SS EERE a Mec: 3 a as os e .toe vfves ® aopPia oxa He o Meebo ae - .“i“Re oreOe . ce bos,

a : ee ee é Y yea a PON a. GLB & ‘ sf ‘ 2d .o wy od a ae taal ga .

.My aa OK haa “oe o wag herere og. oe Fart Ba oe fe £6 ¢ a8: = re enAc veees : Fa deSeLeLage getwe Dek TSeae ge ioRE . eiieoeines nar? StaeTSE f feyhd fe “~ ate Sg sheeRee ee 8h&Ot beretreoes nL)Seat Fmd pc pe cee ie eSSF 4 or ovahued opel they go ER“4 Hae a saAP Gete atten re .yerae BER nt OMEN oe maa ee pata it x

yh4% mee Peneney rcFk, Cop2,ca ih SEO teh ete Cegemdy ce piel Mp Se fl se ithe vat BS SE “caeeee ah,Bag 78 anaessacar ee ers aie nc: Be Been aye eon Ogoe eee fapEES ok 9eras AePedy career tagat EEss race MeO Sk neshe SSRIS te OSES ERR EeEePee cetts an oA Tet Bengt gFee iat wit.pep SyBee Aime SaRe Deoe ON gS TASES a wore othe EE 3 eatES ee, ebeae cree telaaT ts Ree cee Pager ‘RE A .gee et Bs on Maera Te ©LR Pa RE ee ERE Sette ottTE sees £MTBOSE asehSedhpertee aEerteOS

fa aa a TES yeetZS US for, wy ce we .8 ving Foe ey MM 2s, a _ betes: ero : , pM og ee SEES eas aes ate cod wel y Nie Sas tate Soe oe ial ope gs weg! . . te ig . Los . He take Ae 8 Ae Pesca = Y eka oe eee a : : * : ee ane ges art ne : : ne . Geax ess & Ap Zeek eS ii EP wat 2 eR : a ar Ce Soe ak ai ae - . .: ‘afaERD Mo Nig mo ik St eR Sn . ' S BENS Ae44 pee WeeeftRS- poh . ; na Baan fr6% eSgetacing casS35tets,SNS . : fora

we 7 et o EPR be ud ee oo ive pos cage ee she chert tei eee : . ae igh en

a2 Pa, ee Re rae wh BI i ofieas As Ae? eS 2,ESR Se oO a? sabe OR Be . :ate a Rae ae aedog Ooi: Be mo PEAY: ce! gees Rt ae BE te ‘..4CPE ay de nite Oe ae By bt iy sa MA ta. Ate pa CEN a4te By Weoiwecst .. eas Serer Se Pie ttt oi eee ee TRE at Ses FS Oe :i*os Ch SRE ge? ese, OE s i 3 : . : , ; Ey cet Rr se } : . : ies we Ree OE . AEN . ae ae . mivi-| A rrr eau te SM, : ; o: FS Fi : ‘ 2 whe .. . ef A . ba tee we of mek 4 a 3 oa Me ee os Ceeiiee . ~ : Kt Bop we 4 >! Pir sees ie: oP Be § nh nye : " . mie t fey tp At Fy * aa a8 Ss Nae : vos aa Rog eye aati cits ‘ La; ‘ PBS FEES. tie o4Beatie : mat ES " ear } iai RCRA ES7‘Lone ns : . geek ages . eres mf.- Ot ee eas cereacer ; aoSethe urge eiiag ee at a 4ce = |Eps cS BE:hone eV — fedpeg 8 3SE of, an Ses ae . eae tg pee ae it Koen ee TSS TEL: PTR Peat aca Sate ALS ae Ue 6 ea oe mere cs

ee a sarett fed LSet SD ssSE sereA~ME “* Pas eatsaVS soSoee re wey 4 SANS es tc : Spe Bee sR Bee eS, :ae : a EA rs Bs ;2,: Se #8 ae 7 |oa peeteg OESGiinetog AS oh ET Pivot yee ealbe: Seoih eee ORS Nees #53 oma eee Se ey at pee EAN Secor aeSe oN GS os Si:es CN RRS |= aePa RS ord dy 0 ae Bree tS eS Serwerrie aes? STAGE ead Sane :tT ES SE bay ;> oS:rEBeer Re eS . “ 230 ..oe Rae5 ySete .+ nos ay eeee Ae Ree 188 Apaevrigyic: args AA Se BOSS aENON fd Yous &ight Re pete 3:pons tf cc Me . .o agis Bel, os Rie ches Ete. eltor ee Sag teen ere ees TPR NS Ss ee a eat Eg FSO SS ad ve aero wre ’ ase ; ™£3 3 SSE RE tS? ae . ” Ea . : et RRA te Sl6 She apie’ TEEARR paar wares - 5. §ste: $f oa Mica if Paos ee ary ress ch - ; sa :af] og 3Megs ahee . : a.erae wivwes RioWy qamad 3pUTE (Gs So,adare ‘ GaAs yet28S $eBroce fe Pas FY . ane 4 ”. we oe- ;PY eke AEN lake Sete teage oy “aap OG Ne | foe ee ln eae . 7Pee * fatter pay R Sona . Be Ba my GT Bey egotl are tre. ee ery 4 “= . c wee ha my RR aon Pe ee a oe ae Seid MRR Oe eos ee RUBS Nt np amass, eG Neos gow wae Be eee eS RAG hn, en . : : . ge eRe oni EAS a Se east OE Toa RB Ee ep PS Wie! Ai. 7 EY . ‘. AA Sipenary ITB Sec AGSTS ee Read tess teeTa rs -Fhe Ce SBS ee2) ie kee ce eeeESE Bo, eeeebbe 4)-RTS: ae ‘Sade vrBBG tra MARNE BS aeWeal :Et ar: SE aes: pe a3; ”., .fw Ea eee red eSase Sg oe 1Ree Ce% Pela o> NaC “; tpoe TYCivics,” [2 eee ee ee Gk; geeaetae EE Pe SNS

SSS on ie a REO a cc GRRE wo ot cece ese saMe SENPate(BE « . . SRO Se ee a ot CEA - yf nes ee i)a aGeka ON ESS BENcate gf

Rss GEN, ‘~ ss Sen 3dhe : . nal . wwee i. . git Ea CE RC 3Soe Prine - Tank: Meh rs SR . wet / atidAetLA patos ig 2boey«Be Bok oe Man: 4eecage '- 2h 3S4. KESbake seeps3Ae I AOU es 5 plea i” Sea) Beast). . bees yet gk side ag AS ~ dsi2S ABAD MALS ‘ s. ASS HAM“2 PoP t LR

: eS. | of: - Lt ee aaa ee OS ocr i ASE ee eg

ea eee ee TRE. oxen ame eR ones ne Bek we Os kel LE a eS de BAe Ree ae:aeBY (em i BE - Spe, SSS aeSS‘ee a ae wie EOE panSoman eaee sNi Gecies AOS ea: t/a ee A “es ah ore - 'ae : x,ee: *. Baa Se ‘ ee ae pr SSes tanOe eesioe ber SOR ES ae | eeeeee aneEER weeeg ee en i

eo IOe:eae SHS beESTNA ieSRNEE EE SEP eedC Ree moe : : we a ‘ti,ted SoeioES efek ESS SO eSOES “PRR osRates SES iis iea OO sre —Yad y peeks ee OrGe 8S 7 tgeaeewh mye arr one fe ES, Roane *oro teASRS: BSPE ee MRA OoBee ... {Ea aSasYh O32 0ioe ivaPRS te "ial ‘eee : ‘i Ls i ul Of 6ee ¥ ative. phe

a 5‘EO 0BE 2 : {3 TY, obleatagh any : | LASER Akos eee Nis: Wet Ns a gts gig ASN 5ne | aOe ee oe MEN ESM fo rs Are :egEL? hue aa oaTNS Pe nate, ES ma een SR Speen DG. cela tet RE afeee Raes et" :ic~ri AG SER da7 ONS Peg CREME EEN 0S Be Lefaa awe, .gy +‘ANS ow BR et ER GeBSI woseiee” ae 7~ge inAt f:. ‘652 4-Pa ALE? 38,Ra eeest Seth ©) Tee sige ee,Fe = eles aOER, wees | ieee at Sse eswie Bae “tyaTg et,ge eo: - Wx aecan ag “yu of fok fee 0 es LB oa arr Lek a=See Soe, es ~oeeen Nahe #5eR CS oe GOP Oe rag 0 ee es . ay Si we te yLt Be :+7eer Ae ‘Meer ws egSEy TRoe aece’ a aS tke :Da : : ig sitsSRS ARege I :Sk bagtat LSgePits . esa Bow Set MA RES pga, enmemetie ma * ;ae.ear: wer ees ih 7aaetehe osaks ABR¢eg; Ne on cube 9ae PSR oe ane ence ie NE ntre eRBiovag ec tawginobatl Sek .ee -to aoe oe ae "' .4: ¥ 1 ea al SEARS isa MR eae cantar a a he Scone keen Pe AN gp eG aSD asEee ;. we ‘Gh, ARTIS SAREE ES gs EG ellie aon : :::-. *> BN RE 3 ae ksae: ness Ae ahi rrr ‘ - cathe: -Te np,te!Fo ;en s,: ang Bg. +EE te Seas eee. oy ZS at» SRE ro NERIRRA MSE Ea 8. z,EEE os %of ;:.:7:: veg RRR UNSSC paar -IE xbe :.> ‘ ACME 0 Pa : aeLas eae ATS RS ATT ba Seego EU Pe GS OAC ae q“)cP) . - A gletas Ria aoBS... Voge . eo 3k apes! sale eeStepan Ed beae fe TE yi SCRA Sian f4 CRRA Sere 4 ("SI » a wet gd ot loaf ey Ro ig Pees DN Teaco oF oF o& Nee ve ea - Ltst00: . .fe Bhges Beery SOE, ONioe RY ANB EUR eae Gans, a Ga eae tae ay : a SORE 1 se ae he Sic ip an nse a. ST «=Ss _ , SSRN eat ee a 7 Ree Oto mested:. 3 BARES 2, cee RRR AN ca “SS BIS oe oo ereeee 33 SPA A * BEE 4 isdae * BYRw te: Tagg BSS Mig ee Ga OEbe EES See Os: “ae Bis.Os | oft dee aN BG hehe RE weFAR een uSSR ~Pae“ as . Mes a fo ney test as ec.ess xEASE pet, RR aaeepee ven Sam og ,Goes 3 |oo SS Seen pet GR Sh cde Roos Egtee oe Mee tdAN Aish A Save :. hes US eeAA — iB & :iESe ER OSE, SESE NES AOS aN Sines BE ae .eee oeBES Bg 6.8 4 5)2k ae a, Bees 8 WwWe kt yt PR Say, ee oN Se) oteCEG. PPR 7 SERIES Rea 4kes Ragntesss Kg ae &re cree! oiefoe" kee Okabe et! Pere Ae ce | .Y P~ oD) & eeBoShae CMe AO a =.s x,pean Rate Eg§..EME eTBeh Gs Rene ores i ike ackBa es.See ee Pa St+)eeor Lahaye eek oe “tee. wet most perl pees Pex ae Seat & i reese OOS 3 7S}. Ses ved ey SENS. AC ‘ ipek EST te, REE wee82572 ° oe5.352, eI Sa POP Bh OPC: gioco Be c) DM Pa EBSA Be os WATERY He coed in . fo 5 - ESTERS SWARS a Peto CERIN bog 3 TP SO eewee sta: ORBee Re TES of S leraw eg SECRET eae ae : : z ae Risk eee etcana ens: wd > SEB ace, ts CRE PRESS Re ee SON | BeOS OS |

oe SR ° fe Be ey ibs ee ke: ee AORN Gis 23 BigstieSlated ps Seeeatric ig 2: ;.;: ee. iG .AERIS pac Syboda PY Ssae ee red ERS AEROS ET BRAIN iyee! tePe SE(~ : Nt SSR er: ;RN ee .Fgee aPEN wee Ment). ekigGe Ge ~~cD) cD). ry Stmetie SIEMPRE ReEEE Rs REE > BS RSake Maialy 1 RMS. SE a Beeae oO ge cae Et Ect SIG Ady a ees : . So +1BARU hansENC aeBRE BaeAS OEE Ee, SUIS Oot aac

SIRES CARO ’ a he Tee Ges. wes ees an Lael

Sone eee ELSWay URL CB! :eTpe aSe: :AetePp oT Py SA Se aakeek Be al WY © ey rig Pepa scr3END emAN so“a>. gare as :Raiit. : .2.5 . .Re stOY See Gol EMC Goat Red ea ASE seaey NS Nae SMES Se a RS, Fee SESE BRE ct QO ice ooeey :aie ,pS :an .°oC % pierens pay LAY SpRPE Re ane alc EO aS Ove BNE om sas ..®sot Be £8 5SEIS ees be asta AES Nain che deed |TS ERR aan 34ANG after! Ne eipee, Ls . . »rd Beh aclu SEL MES cos ARSR Ke pe CORRES acs SeSE Rae Se ak selme OSS Fest Ss SEL CER aS | LAYS » BS SS SE tg Ree oy aN ae Be es pee aoeLNG eesPRbakes aie EAR ~chee ne igh fgDS RcRay Ee ee TRUER ihSee el Oe ae eeafte. NS.ay "RBS ee .Fegt .BAAN PeSePe OAS Ais ah Beets goita RNa Reheat =AG RRR, ge, sep 2©aera Po3..AY al ot ae S22 aeaks SIN SPR S OS eSRe ALOR EEE ea cD) . 2; Aa NY SAREE ERE At tee :. BRE eA OUNE SheeAAR TAL “9 Pee RAALIS A eabe Sate Seo) ay HE ke Bakes Bi arce t GOON, Apacs Died RTS oS Aas NS yiehige ek: BS BISfas On nes ON ASE EL Fd ae NEE a aaJfoP eS :-Slew aee eePee eeVERE eeGees * At oe stk: yf zed +aON . ie ca Pak : aed a. oye ee eo” Pah AF" yn Een ee oe ae iitae 1)oo aoe MERION ER een “67g SEO Sneee ae ahs, yen an fs ao éfete: PA heBOE 2S Tl AShe son) “Sher «BRP Pia 7LOR aah ( 2Fe gtoS ieRS goPot

teeBM nate “ BE RE eeaCRS i tity . Bd woot 3 , thee As oi . ' a4 =”PN “ ‘eae yi:ARS 3 : Be te aN ae. ”ber, yr 6 AKz at Pi: a es a :® gp Ba) Bice RRwee pt cee ROT iBoe i VECO ES: ad : . :B . hes eh. “eg ie. My) fe Px ae * ‘Sh § SOA SH Reena Pires Bow rayud saris: a wok, MnNy Ff,SB, Bia?St nadER « von

. a ee ee a : Oe “ah boc ed be :gsBr gePo ge aak‘ egta gaalleal ne RE ay carat tok eee: 7: S43 eM & JBoss CGS oe edMom PREGsae 8 cae ‘“a Bonde eatSek oteube Bots a BYRY eesFRR eee:gfBle we Uy praca hwfens BRS

gall SO be2Ein ie Ta Rem ecNEE BIEEC ooa eld ORS nk ee sg ila... . Pye id REN UIISe 335 SEALS fowes eeR EG NT aeEU 2)as ee LESS BoEa SOLOS okA Me pete neoh x PD eofp 5iont aot sea 107oe ‘, .8{EE 3ea itWe 2 te Ee IR Sapte: hs, ere foe Ey Ril: al! 2geee SRR? et itawy Be tes e( :PR éiereen acn7 ; me Scere ee. ae ite

ee i ae 2 RR doen osoeoe a es ore heenCee ee ae| Gee alas es oe iIegey me Os oN Po 3 a: ae °lefae}

ere ater te EES aarages S Gaeta k ae ESoe Ree aS eae |Sa 8 ate SERS, waseen Tee NY)= wate NaS aeENeae Ste oS Se CREEs aes eR EB .oe .ASFS i aeaefe en, BERR aTDna Seaoes esROS oyES | epee PROBE IR: eyo aeee, ape Saeco Wipes nes ae BEL geo ABO ETN RE EN ety oe 9: Pt ; :I te Sgt BEE =, EeMCAL Sere tad ERE Aes AO Tee WES es RO ass eePee “eho soe S AT #5 SEW AN ES. 3 fag eeen, as te ASO +DNS TIN Ohge 2E-& Ope ges So Pig Ree Fe S) Wee Sines Wye WEES cs qePSORO tars Fe SRNR ERNE HER AG? aaTERN oy | SEE ¢ oe

Re rie Be Sc RRS an eesEAE oe, ES NGOS NaS LER eae Se ee) aGat ie ee % ACA hor Pee BES Sa EY Sao aeoeSHE aes 5 5Asett ee . eopabesa Sana Wes RES. BRN RE reo ¥A SteESE ONBaeneerates Caeps SSNS. - Te SAY Nel BE: Sates oe Pn ee Beemer oe 2 aE. v. Caen x! Y Eo aes8PER | RE Ee SS dae bid yc CRG aeaePAE “S eterna eltaA 518 sree” ae eesees. Bes ESS ene ES esegare Cenk pee eget mac Be reCe eeePNoh kee Zen morte EDF ean pos * tect metaf et Pace 5) EER ER Oe Fe PRE LoeTig coseon Peas SE Se okBAM Br atees oiede BUT BBReS PPSNo F cee ea Boo ty, BESCoos Ye Aeae ke oes 4 mee :=a See. eee :

ang keie a RG ts og InSame eee ORSECS akeRete SONG MER eS 22 Lhe tres Xe CA SUE eS SERS Loti os RE RAE NY,Sint ES tts MRR oe SSS re:chroma wasae e ee3BER, metas f= SE A Piet coe: ;iaRPT, is) See been) feME RSENS ONS ‘ SOAS Re Pestana : oSfee Beees ©parc #2 Bye ; ad i Cpt 3 .Kaen Sj be veel RSSigERG ae CGE Soars TEA | reece SEER esSONNE SASsal RS Fada ee RNES “ES SEL Ren Per

Je a ar a Se ey ae SEE RES ag Seem oe SAS SECONLS es : IRR TE oh Pee eS Ph an 9 on are eS gag &

5Be ee NN a O Se af ‘ete palette Wi ins Fa aan SRE Doty aRCe RN SEUa Re eA oat gate pele 2h eS Ninle Monat VES aNd Rae nee ee ee SATE ST : Titec, . eyo ytet aid 3* wast heEee eer,eae RLbee sare OE y. Al‘varie we Ye a Rene io caereings Paces ESERIES Ree LEeeR Ea“ate 3 ee eetRise p RPL eetaeLE es Ni TOR Pt: See: So4me BS

» eeag EatSRA ete ee es Be eae hac Bek, eae arses eaeSom Be SRR Tae es BON ERR A Se A f OR: Sige ee ee SreeAO ee Race ioses wate BEC tig: “sales : : fd boowes azoore aa Roe Be sAr ieEas aSinspoke eee We eee SP OA Be eoBy APES EEee: NeRRB . Ge OCR peed pe co eee aaaa begs Nes O58 Uae SS EUR SS Pepe eSfisSERS 27 oa gabeyES SEE x ONT DIS:SA tun nn” ERE tes estedJiBee FA A gps Cejoe ge ay| el BS. sncoR septate esas ge Het feet aaa RS Sage Pert ee ths Cente: Seana TOES PRNotARES a\ SekktSRS cement SER ayes oma WT” ELEOUARS RUS veoh Wee Sea * Poet

RG GTS“hr AND Skee RE tsoe DRS ees urges hme ARS esCSO 3 pay Sees SUSIE at Diets oT iecdi aNBE BREN Ree aoa xon: : noo gd oeaeROE RIS EES EGS atSeSEG ESE SS eaeReSeay. Se onesae Seal > hie oh SESayeet ey gsFea Tee Mak es an Se Th eeas beTees AE EE SOON Te aeeealter RS Enwk ESSER 6 ANN yy SeLG ASlaSEES ours iy Sons seefdgee BESS SOLER eg saad.

’ Cee : Be eae NB ee uote eee = Ree ert See on Re ee. By ee SN Epa as SE TEN: CIR a , un) : iD) Le Sema ; tse alee . ee ae “ROEM! hogy Big4 te ts Pa ea Se estes

ll : ete s ots . a Se \ OS: a4 x2= = Pere. St Se RRR ce ta ee ee Me, |) ey eo sae oe & ae i. ORE ges at te Sik SS eer PENEN SEER Es ded SS SNS nae ah We a a BOE: ae aTOF eeeese as ee: Nani ge Aaa GES a!wees oe So Be RARE SESS eS ee ceca ga, pegeA ile ee MOR Be Be me «aa ee.) re z“2 rae art Be : eee: ekg Caran PeTaeer ee En eS te: eee ,

ay! Hee RO aeAEF oben° aCERES nena ort Aes Ree! daeh, Ss vse] Lge ag Fq 1, See wer Weis ORS So te ZEEE SOR, .oe earn oo seh: Beiwo .ae. "3 ot ; ee. ER Ee Lae aaeAreapiain’ AaYay Begs peat ae |sg Gn ib ae i: NERS ae od FOR eR ME ae : Boga pe" ORE 1 Ag SESS Donn nests ERESABRE a RR ee ‘ RE ccs: Bea RE SRE BA Sanne . ae Bal YNg? RR Neo Rae veh RMS ue qhide | ey | WET EER oO F220 BIRO nS *SE Be SEY Ee : “ AS Rae ES “ BN thee ae aay ashe seh Pee on. Ee SMe | ba Ty etPin: BB ONE PRIMERS co URE ERS eelEES sees RAEN VASO EESSesets AES eater ue ie .7: acy a a RR ccs bake ey SEN ACR ROAD gS OE ie ee Taga Re “oS ME Se EE ee ARES RRR hae Ce Na |RES ORE SESS 4 Safe se . Pe igae se. SE ES . ae cael. Ree OSE Hee te EE GBs ae ee os Gane PRR a. ee .ssCR SRT at re a AEN aaa pee tee ato AG is Bi OB typ or Us RENE + gee hs a ie SRA SG TROREAS. og LE SBS Pa 6 ‘RO Mpa oStad SEs sd ee 2Hig PE,bet eePAPA hale Atespe= ’ . sof eee 5 SOE HRB agBe Neti MESH Ce NR CaS | naike’ “P25

cs a :

otmy Le aaRee a ae* Ee ee Sg eeegas i Beste . ae * ma Bigg coeSEE CeEee oe ae eaeon:eons Ree ia aTePS

ots i meg Pees tle Tes ons eee a Sg eltUa ae eee le cane wAOE 3 Sia one BY ad a CRD SEES oe wy Bad ea aBie SS af i oe GSE oe eee Snega Pees, GANS eee 7Ae *gee :"hoes SnRAR SC: er sfRie TI hs Aen Aeere SOSA SESS Sis EUS UE aewag hails eiFe seg. ; .food oye&ree ,any Ore SoRS: feds HSE REE oeEES 1ne Ne 2BES era eeTat:=a 5”2B ne ae a Oo ene 2 RSS TARE 3 ae oF N ae : -..oO ee tego iene oC Oe e Feke eg ey Ria poh Re LEY Ge eee BAB OPND Bec ormmart = SS Ee) mee Rae a ng Meas Ve Cher Se ap agg] E: Sg> Bo pd NS cae “4 Reg eee ea Se Ghee TSS cupduadencetuize ty CRE A EES for a a SB + 8 oe ‘a-og : ie .

:. ue onAya: i . Sar Seee aauaey ees ARE, SOSs SORES REAR MAS ceePeokt | thy we“2 . “eg : "eg wes Shag EEE Sawa Se) can) AaRIES Ss Sei cee *.3 pee: va itaaeA ny : BOSE Gh ORB fe ete ec Pe eaesy Seeye ee tas 7. .lyar’ 3M =a.$OSE Be BA AE. eee ae eee OED asbe EE q3osadBey Net Rog fee ane CAN Ek Me eg: ‘ ae Joints .a. 4aSe TRA EE Bh te EES RAR heen ns eeaa it aaPaw 5: TR noe ae af «RBS st Re : :: oo. : eon BB ee "eS pennies al ES eeo 5oecgahe eet MOC SeRSE ike Seeds :are ee o aME: — AePRES ES: OBERT agoTR a arte taeean GRO a : 2Bae SES SEALER Rie :PE scien so5 eis tyasetertces as wii,csSEE GS2Bo aimee : a ae oe oO 8% :

ae ak; ree Bens RS ae ae ae > Konno Bar aee : ek. g OS :

Dee OR Baanoe Me eeEE a eS BSle es3SPSS. ie ee; 7Bo = mon ter oak 5RAGE fSEES wet arsveces eS ge eyDLS iecats, fades | Bis mos NT sgh .igs ieees Ee Beige Wg ae aIR oe Oe nae SER no ‘god Ay othe a ee OES eae ESRS Bgee tet. .; . . ae :: oe ie Be Bg “Eyete Rpee SEAds dg©re” TWASary OSDae pee :aaa a a |¥ aeee

Sire.” a2 ° Se Bae TEeee BOS SSorernes pba:. ey i GB = i: etLe - a2: ... ; . we . we ea Coed a OMS .ptecae his BE a RS ns SERS ehh aga SEE Fieoewot 5 eS 6feOE ae aan : x cee Sas :peek EGaeeee PRES SUR CHORES GyME PR RAE "Aah $, aes. pa:AYE. ae Boe 1eeLBR GS En Fa| algae aS RgES ook AR”i” Bay! Sa a eee aeBoae . EM ed aBt tt he .Be x aae: PRESB OS Sete + eet oereap,

Maes ee “V8 ES. SESS es ee, tighog, s+Pion Lot rast OR ee EB Re ee, MERC We1CARDS E USERS TET “ee : mt a UTgesy LesSe RES ed RT aes a. Shy : fy . . pawn, ea , : acis iho} wos rE TRAE SSIS EA Ce SBMae ORE svEGE ER ae Sry WS Bo aaBoke .cal Bay SeSes aayvel .haat i.: >eRe eet ei whe LEuy a ge BE ES ag Ses PRR, ; ehe Re Somes 3 aage eae ae .pSoe Ba) aeIVER eee me Se eee : a

ne SM ORES aie See oe Se 8 ere ane eo Pape ee ee a eae - ee aes \ Fyn Re ete aa wide Fake gas AR es . Gin a mae . . age eo” :'TS, SRE Ed |ogame keeotal SaBES eee Oa ESaes os ae ts arian Sa sdssie4ara re eS lie .: :we fe.7age RA ed ae OES meas Bee ORE gees ean : zco i,-ireneen ot ‘Fo wey a. ope LAG : 2a : es Cae ee +era eee Be ee°Si Ber 4% aNa: aLae gh . o cage RR Cue TR ae Rn ar ee ae . vay‘ SEPANG eta Shag SERS 1S “yd ?ae feea: artes “Si: - Aae Be Bee.a EEE, |open yc Sis: a NE eae wee. Pee oR gcaw Bary. key ;atiae ne Bel 2” Saas Meee... eeAS RRR CRREERBE. espa

bos ees RS ee RASS SO vetlel ko poes, a4. Bef syES Lath Faas ee Sah eEOh teenaS. (ESSE et.oei ! 4 “ og. ie :SEES Re Sec... Beatore eA ae Susie Pa)ce Maier MEST Gee Behe Foe ae oan hoy neSswes, Bg: Bc aUREN aa acane ee KS HERA ere Wi fogs ss eee 8coBREEN RNG ee oe SER Eia SEE FE TE SSNS VSURDALS AGS hee0ae ae “ye : Cy ode “ .Sane iae BS! :Ba “TREE :Sea aSes BEAST, NS Be SP ORES | ER SEEN trOM SIGE og MEGS RO: a ne ome sbiekees J ‘g.ee -.,‘aad a _— — ain a SOS f stinn.. . beeT aekehogamnes ee SEU os. RS Speen SARE aL "Odea fhoagee TESS SBSH BR Se REOMMS se et nfs co) Sees : of Pherae ice * Nabe Vhs L' latae eS Bagge go TEES asthe ne ne: RE SeHecea asheRea: Bis:« em weer—— _ a a 4RS 2 SURES ie DOE auc iswe pias asRIN aS JP ee™ iN SenSoS ES aE7egy SPS Co igeee ed Senin. watt Ie ie ecoe ertics Sehe Co RMS EN OSCE SUREE SS raTE seeBS AEN A, te te See jaeTyee t, seated, BT SEES eens a S50): a eem oa aga 3 hPREY we fa eenes et PEAS! RO ies MA ok a Pac Sr rare sees Teese einen te Das eae ae YES REE ns yo SPEC vest SE Ube coe Soe Loot i” UAE ‘Saas > Ce el CESS BEA gee Seve PLS SRE Ayea Zac eeerias in.' ttt PRN Tp REeS Mn SG iakdea Seo waleSNBER tebe sy eee Tes Spoge +, (Rigen Pa * TERS Bae USRRESRS f Pees eee, are hE 8 vues eas ee So 4 ee Pieee 22 ea coe RES EERE: eee as Ls ake rR °gilt © ia: WSDehbadaten uakee Oe ca ae eerie Rae che. ees eSa Bhat wescGR cae ce Re ekog we et VERE a ARERR Rees Be Be ia abit Ss ee eS: oe Teg ee igeysoon gases we eeeRees a LEties RA | te NPR S Re ee Leieaae- ws haCae SORMEE pees eae Me easel oeSe Te CF ae eee Saepe sys Geiss ee eT ty RSS eRgee ec wee he Ee - e. SS + ee ee

cocateetesccoy- 3h abs. Reo [EER pie: arent ENE ESET Pee eR NC ok she Or see Rcetbr Gahy? hoe nat Shean GREY eRe ok Sena oars ves areas SSE" aR oe OPE eed SREY feeBN. \ Ree AA ee ag vt soe oh ORG ALBSBZGe. 7 eh Rates ERE SLEPT 9SRR lle fee PCRiOiAne Mert abes Crstrae REeBOES ee aa Eee es: Siete, wan siete SE EAE. SNS LOS Meee SRR| RR ph ERE ote Bh S/o ORES NS,SEER RECON NSSasa ORCC N BEERS, HAN capi Sf tes LETTEee RIN RO deaeens | See RES GRR

Eee bebe SURES okRS ee i noe UePRS SUSE SN ShBoiiapate Beer alWEES mpg ee SeoeenGRSoe ceAEF) ee seas Stables en URESaE DREN ses.oT TEL eeen JOE D0 RSs et eaeet2S. SRS| Be Suatinety nth Ong ser ee WERE ees Wivetina OSeee SPRen Se eC oe WCE iu Eee_ EEN Cee GRRa 1es, BREE Bs COSA ngsUB vahen ABPare 2 aR. Bn oR Fes eRe eae RS Le irisMRA vag teeaS, Pees SSSR » PERE

Petia OEE ARORES FE” SE Be SES cg SEA SNA “38TRB eS amet HsSECE acueareen ESSERE SRESears BONNE we eye RRR URC Un Eig a REPS Be whee Bee ESSE ae veepets SEP, apie eer PRESTR, Se +, eSRES RE Sete a pe ERoa AFFER fsjeg Rages 5 ete, CERRY aewe AB te#e gee Be whee noe “pe ARES RS logge ARR aSGAR Beier orbe eeSeaesteie ashe cee OS aon bans KE t2 ay he 2sosrrostitats oy Ee BRE tas 8SEyeahe OOO SaSia SOs MEPS ee "Oh SRE eA SRR aePEE RESSH NG Eas EG e oeOe SESE EF ee: okae,oh evi wks WY eS eee eesget SES ec ames 3APRN pee OS bee" 1:FS. Bienes ae REtetiet ae SEE: TRYST SES aeons aes RG aeUDR a SEBSBERESS. PES omit : eet i aie. aise -* 3te> Tee. SAREE RRS 2ssRIS G ScSAE ERG ROB VESTS Sey. ESB ES Ganeist PESRISCS «DEBE it S. Scere ce +, . ee - BASE .cae BPR nS SARA SSWaaee COREE, eas Sg Seales cee Gi. ee aie tein ar se! SORES. SEE CRSP ZB, iS:oe AERrae CREB EO Sey WY or ~es : Saceae SEPRRRE SSS ERE MOST ESS SEARS RNR BEd «| Wastes Met RREINE : TAS Cyn RENO PEE aes EP Gay Bahn: Ga! ica TEE oon Bh: rca payee LOAgID: oo clwiegis a “ vo hgSSR. ee Eee eee She Sea ask Ra Bagg, ES, ‘ wees Ce PBA

SLRS oeaetg EE. ie: ae : 4 us aed COE Bee eeoe TRyhe asaee ot Bas oheaeeh pra oes eed ce EES8penan wet eh tery Fe in RE Coat OME fs . a SUES EEA wtf Steed a)ESA Be EES nr te.Pe aoea tam sia eeioece Srein asi,«RHE ae es ; gone ee Seewea eke OME agelegke Eb sms ene Hore? Fis ee ee ra“2S ”:

cemi:She ae:° fhe RasdsSS ae ies on ie hae Co a . an. a. oe ERE pein meee! wat eee wea bee iedee Ak. ELSES =Hae BERS sutteee RGRe WR . 1 aaa Ce eeRs mpudey TR,gc. x. Portico of the M que.

seoEB eaeMEE : _—:cigs. Pata paces ghee: Pere someEES oy yee Bey Pectieinta eaten 2eee so sd -Baebes EAB SEER UES pay AL La SaoeoeHdd BS BA ads, :PER.) . sd7met caphauaconsaanne: eiaaare aleses Sa 0 oar ioeeH At Si negara Spe Biase: GRAS’ sine aE a od . ety CSRS ST SERee | SEE De PE pee BRS ONS gee at Pes) Ste ates ‘e Hoo oe aes BEER eee Tyee ktES asSEE REET tay SOS AO Ses Sra es oewT” ee Pes feetat is) Senter a *satop Be PERS ghaueint ROBES ae2OS aay leeReesBees. : as 94eeLoe a ep oeacs eS hemes SRR ge Ee ee PRY

SaseeSeana cetey: oe / : :: B23 ao HSaeaoeee =a ree LORE EEcreo A erie Cees | RRS BAG SEEN MEO CES RO + POSER ooh teat + ER a aut os“8 haps sgt tell ONBIA ERY bes ene re BR aGes ND" fee waged a. ye :: suttgaeey aoe ceeeLg Pe :eee 8SEARS arm oo BEAR oh Senin IOURS SSS ia, veaseayt foe PAM wah. :°eg cer pee ewe eee Bere eer ERE OREN -Ras Tees “aeAES bee 0‘LSE isLE ‘ WPoee oct:ets aetees SS op Eee laganet ey, ins aZEN tetine oh =1MIRE eye SSE 2eee HERE moe Vdd = BOR URES ae Le aE eS Se ere nse 2deat toes :scne an ae a|ee Pr SO ei fee as on BEES. ea “dh, coed aie stDos rs iakise : 8aSeek DERE re WES APSR EDUC eed rite OES, SE boss SERRE eee Ee SSins Pe ea, “* ra LER roel cele ant Pe or APRS eran FERS = eS) ORT Se . seghes aPRRs, ia,tae ELS 1uo SEBS bce rreee ae Pols intal SEARS peeBevel gaPaS" Shee Gig TERR Hee RON RCO Se od Stee

Cx Boas UNE NSS ath eng BS BEee MERON sae Saba yie Lateen 20 peas

ee eee Ee SRM deoe IRENE “ BE OE SOE eo ee pid SDE SENRRRA SC8BREN ALES ES ee wee SSSi BE ekee eae cfPRE te SSR San aBy -lg Re RES NER ORRIN SSESB ARESA iYSa, + SESS Trt WSR Ty LeROAR ean g Se iCRESS oy ERO vote Beats haat SRO IE Tee beg SS OR on TATRA tare ac eB:&|aeSe FCA: See sia ea 1REN wae oe we. fas RN, ee ae. LR aWERE SRL Sa % | .1 oS SR mEhg, ESSVest artes amea:meee st. hae ve fgeee Be SHERRIE Bee RRS 2 eet hg PERERA ERR Bes ARR Gare eho aye ee SheaRast eae RN Ee res a AE rgBehe Re ae, LSS ER:aa aE et eaAS SO e'Rye oe De ee. ee Oe eS SF Bee ie ae EPR Neo 8 ae ae ee vi Fogg EAD 2 an ai,CS ehVERS a . % RARER BE Se . OU BIRR ISS SG ee a ne .,es|aeas r< ROR SaaS 0SES ERS POSS zee & 2Boe! 1ERS a EE ABE: GES FREE eg ES! SOR a7 2PARC cee Ee ae Pee Tevee ee ERASE ee age Pe Ee ‘. se ERmy ENS Re RE ak)EES Ho Bee aaaics percha oto +pe Hayoo Sone, “yMatesete es NY eR aes SATS ie “ See «areSTENT La CSTE “OSE 7 EES Ses S Bee abe wy weSeco Ley OSoth ec Sarthe Spey ths i 8 os ENS OE eg SESE Baeeee, oe WR Nertges? i a PESTS a Bo,SVEN PR §od 1 EE LeBARR, ER gc (ERS ORSSae RSCG. vat ages

Eaae Sree TEER aanRemist ROP Se ects le‘1,eas Pence im| OUR Re em| ates she BeeRES ERS Be aes EeOR pA SetNERA Se eso 7 ro =.Se=aean — ye Gee EE 0 Roe REARS PSs. CERES: MOY Baad fe he Tt | Mo yoges ? a ME geRPEy TRE SoH, “SUA rieeeen * Se Pe BCAReh Sure Bo Sa eater Sas me eS ree Ue ee oe a Yas. ely. RAN Gn ERE By MERRY FS SAE acre AERIS \SAS VESoaet” SOS ne Fee

Beh oy Re Oe oe iS ge +. i qSAA era MRCMEL «WRLC ew) BS apy ee mA ee: Saran A onthe es) Setegs Tae mor ie $ BRON a Be rey SEES NN ABP Basen) . < , | e i ee po ee rr ae SY EES Oe ae: peas» TE >). ee "past OW . ese ee mee pea

ee ot ag a SE eee LSE Pa CO ae Me ps BO “EW apeer wet SSR ARR Pane aTB StROR he crs aeeee BSG Sage vO TREASON Tes Beect. Sor etos ex, ke... ee aSSS poSs a *aaa3B .'oes he ONY AC TEES en SE) AR Spee apes itaPRR Meee wah ese RRC ORT Co A ; OL ,Py ete Bie eeIRS SoD. Wage she EY: ere Ve ee CE oe Wie aj2-e: aPe TES ESAER RY kS. 3— aoee oy oD gee RT escae CEA 2 ERA SPAAI SRO che pare:ae Boe Breage ee 4Ce “ee SS OR ""END ..BN oN reales Pcs, aie ON Mane, pape OE ee : gE Re CN am soe aRS RE Nie ES *iy NERO eMC 3 1 HAN geet RERUNS ES SEE OS aecae -_ oe ao — od aie "we Pet A ss NR a7"EC Hag Se ee Rees ae eae akPeeps “§ Bae ESS SERGE Ee ws NE ee. ype a US Se ase Bo eo Bee ue sa Me RToy aeeae eehess Kobarperied aeedsSn aaLTC are eeAEre nee mee :—Ses fois Re SaRe cea Pefaery atess-.ayes RE faaec: SSenfee aeos. aeae! == oe .eeeee ae LENS S RRS reese peatAERIS OR?opis hak aeNe AUR geei “HF

aes ‘tg NO aeORs aS eee eee CSSA STS NR NOR mae Xc tee hyRae RD 1Me : ?Sig eee Pee RRB SE MO ROS oySEL EMRE Rages ee1pepeirees eeELT ot>Pe: Manito Greenies a«oNBae ears | tepoe &4Ln: ee ORS Ge SSD pPE OS SE eae § PMT SS LOE, BS on oo CARS RCO TN CEE Raa aan URES ee EP nell [kes :eaPwo crete *oe ESS, eeePRA SEY i“4 See SATE Behe Rce) SONS RAS SRR AY Fa “ft aes|SONS Sc SPTeeny ESPD Soe oieete TS |fae 4abs, 2.at pSSOR ASEAN ERD CoN PRN > [ree PPG ie. GG PORE BD SAND SO ace ane woo re yee ro b8SERRE we. “Sst Pa eee hs RS edRR ae

Bes eae 2 oe SR Oe H.-A ee eae Re ts a

EREane Schad hy | Ue ESS ESE 4 atherleeee ise,* “5 ircrsanes, te,NE ei ee we Sense alias: BES. og Se Bese oer OO EeSESE Ree SOARS CIR NE 22 Cee seetei Sa uN SoS. rtp: oo neneem Sian ROC ce Beha gt ARE: SEB eck ers re: Ee Rete aS 2 sags sSe ee, ER : Sg Lo |MEAD oale aES, aeDeeg araTAS YRS ea| Parcs: PON i eprinteee Paes ee3FARRER oie Re z, OE etBor Bey ee RS ai“2 aeNiche Se Ser Re CAREN UR Ae ye NR CoaSUSE as ns ELK

eeatyaee 2 ayy ot* EAS ae) 2Set Re area aaRSS Es tal:NE aa CO Cone aeRacer nO RGE SREY ge BB i Soe ee Bak The [iis 4 Raa Ss Pee ie TLS EE en ee Me So rig dos UA Sa ues Tees BaeS atKon) 4, BA 2s See Neae ay syeee Reeiad eeCAGE Bag ot Syamee est be or 36 rr sigitiel aed bh stg eS Fier ss.acne HORNY Secoer eRS ge ee . eae

oe ee ee a a io or One yt SOAR 28 Wee Pon

Pees “ERS er eeeke + glume “ONE a BO Cai Neh gesCa e za Peas im EERE Benn cet Re Ra ens ce aera ‘dry See.ogdia Roe ma Baoee eens COPE OCEEESIED SSRN OS?EE stan fSI LS.CARN aay Pe) byrne gee . &. SicLc aayBs See 2G BoELag CED Ee BEER Bet UUERR 2D RUS pees) Nie Eee * os a, hea SAL Dai otyatbayeis eeeeae ee oT eesHers PoRe ERT Berle Ae peSee ee:aon ERENT eS AUN, Se Bee aes AB NS & ‘a SOE, GREE TGS EV ag aes “a egies Be 9 get les ESPN Kea Fs a a é ae :2;re ‘ BESS De ne ea GRRE tee ot “Re te” OR RRs ZEN ENC SR Mie a eeeeok eee ee ie ee ee ce pe its eres = . spomtceree mp ak oe POE SEM eee NR OS1aEe Besant ro teie2)yay co SBASoareN eaPee Ree Ps Eee aa Rees aeaCSER SOcerie7 ae ase eS Ae$55, Seuleiy ares 2.Be Se;SMES! SEO SR Cope gone OOS eM wa PAE ORS SUNS sab le ye hy SBPae See wae Apes a SURES... Ie he Tabs -\OR*YZ AGS eseae

Re ae ee ERS! Nee ees Ee ed : con Re aor G nee peemoe eee:at>TESS Poo, tINe SS. SSSR eee Sie Reger Bp SESS CONV keoan Kade ResSee TOfe oo2Beas GSS tte r. aS Re. jee ce ES Be OEE DRS SPE sD ae Se POE Seay: yztose fightBasset AgneeMes eh eaeCN Rate eS ie ee Le uke SE ne Batre keRa Se RAN inpSR SONY SNeine aie MES 5S SE BenBIE EAN ae pees Pe es oe ane AGNES URN A EL RLSS ESS ¥1H RO,OSE GiteRe Sate yee. Kea, Reers eR ES on LESS EAR BE eo omSa wag, Bab fo, GE. Been LS Paseo SEAS Sr SERB NGC ey ot SEGA oe aeaay Pa Be ee oe he dee ane 3 sq .

ane eeeePe ean eecen + RSE SESey EE,SURERE Sa ate CS es. eres Lye eee! "cenit ag lhe eeerteasee 4me CRONIES ARES ae Bene Low Fe Rees oot nt See eS CONIC RARER Uy BQ oo BERS Parma seeSS west Sar Steed oc: CS APHBOee Sees ses ee:.: *oe Ae ae Sf CONERSE Ca TR OT EIPSs, gt er: RAR «00 BO reMa Nh aaa Re. gen Ses eR Socio oe ARS . og fe Bee eeaVEO AR SER Se eg? emer sreii mma eraSe ten aNTON ay,aWeteere ASR Se LESSENS ROP Se REX Be Sk oRSee ed aePea tes Lig «-aS Pe Se ae MORNE CER US Bo) Seen. eaMana FReretae feORE eae aECSS seAeERR RRO 9 oeSERS ee ca Spies. Mes ~ EO PeOEP 2ST, RES . eyoe Boo a ey ee pera Pee: SAE. Eo Son oni iePea CRU, Ra RARE SRE Bate 6See FtcAOS PRS TBS 4yes Rak eae cae SBE oe aatSeon iefiSOAK Rae OAR ECE SES NE NING MS GSO Prien gePERCY! Meg Se < ae. ast he BOS ORER Loge atts . TEE tee ete, ROTO RESO on RRO COC nS PRS ay AON ES ANION 1 OLA Shae No EN aaa this Si Rs4 " 4 FS 2 3, ES SURO eae sages °F . . ::JN ee: et oR ee ee : Ses Tae ere fos ew > oe ay ERE I EN gE ol . SEA Res ae ee 4 eS. RES | SERRE “eva Mo ORR EN ACCU ROR Toes AIS eI CRS RRS Leet fies eee wren wether. en i Pee SESS se Sn cnn ae ae os She “TE DSIRE odONE REETAS CESS iS hae TR cepA PRR tigers Seat RESTS ry ae poses pes Bie TREAT aSTR ee peed 2oee BoA -Bashy aeBeeo, oN PONFOSSA REN aeRN aSee SRE gol Ragin CR ae PTO ee.oeeke Rae orseers a.eee Se OR RE Rae ae gern, TEE ik rn soe chee CE SES ees sre wee Rte on hay Ns ee oa? Dee eBage gtcae tBA SEN SBR BAS NSS mee . ae B,3:ateRE oR. eetge PRUAT oySRG Semen oN BRN SS 45 1Ene SR are Ne SE ea ia ey NgRRA tae Asoth Ue 8Pe ond Rage Beeae SES RR oeme Bpaok REN cs =atwi Berens: ae iitpaiva Se eee aSBCioy Tae REENSURE re aT Bae UA ies SS PPE PET FP Were “yO PRS 3 ae BE wee aBRL one ear Sete eee 2dite’ at oe GE BRT oe 2Ls SEER Ree eae ast cas TE | ate ME BRM Ie BS aSey Sey, :ote. gues a :re %SE gos SEE OR Ea aa SES DEAS RES Sci h Se SBOE 5 » yk 8S Ye a MR hake : ME ba ane fhe aea| |: : -Re oe ee 2 ‘ a es Oa : KES pearice SSE Re WR , hatin” Vata ort “Aad ee wot tk ss EGE ae . woe tee aS CORN aS ease here. t= : Parone ae E+ Bop. DPR Lt E + RS et Ree , 3 “ord ee yi ee VEO eS WU Ora SROs | Ree NORE ERAP Re ian So, se oe wr oe eee, UF EP DARA 3 TRAGER ME Se . oat |aS Se SOR BACCO ON ng RL MUNS BONS OU LER nN ala wan LE ARES Ae “ “. to; Sarees Ce ae 9 we ESS pe eee ‘ ngeigit oY * Soto. SE Fe Se te gtiy EE “ee Se ran rae oF ky ss, Deh A ae ia RRS : tone ad fae % e Llb

1 Se ERS ES Be aN+E as Teen ems a oh, pata seWe - pels :tego ke Ne |we | : on & #|:;ea“i | CON CER tCONES 2 ee" toe AR >peace eryCA wa eeSRE Sipe teste” ibe Fay Se Seaa Phegego ioe ae ok eERSao Ea es MS ;cn 2g Sy aE dares eS (ee Reus, Pence “Eset a tg CE SERS 28 re ERE Soe : Re ge, LSU HLS CER : See ESO EEPRESS. Pe es ae208 eSee2 a Be oe wot ES Rotemsen SORE. Oe Cue: Ro SARE GUAR ORES yen Ber ees, i% re cae g RACE, : PERS TEE DR 2 0 ; . ee ae ees os Oe Mae. AR oe iy RS hep OPE ROR, ta 3 i an ree Ch rece an PER SOOO NN ed BRR Sao SER NS BP Waren Wee SCRE AS * ae ee lt Brae ag Be FnSATB Se: A! Boerne core a : .| R375 RNG oo ES selene ae pens wo Ae OES 5 EBS . RoR LS 3, a iy. : ome es ey ERPS eee ROB Te SES Nee cok REE Ree SERIO gana OLS ae so” oe -EBRE May: Woe we oak. RA cs aes Paes RASA) Ted RR a age Re oe Oe bee eee cee B oe a RES cs: oe 5: RRS Ae. aeSEN yd ee EN ee OOere ER BR . Rsoe osaeeres meu ai niet .oewe +A REE an SERRE “ROR SE end be oe ae on es hn ne : BB yeYe oe RSE OES “eS Ai4Bw See BOR RUIUS, BM ayeBae ieae Seria opr FALN mon " ra “ERE BES De ae : : :& ~Sete “EE eee se f° *ages Sarah ake a: aie thy fetes CRESS anaes nes : Se See ee ken UFR oe whee —_ ae ~ 2 a=ae = Bap ETRY Neos5.eas eee (a eemh . ek + Tass. BFE ESri EN "Pinte Sele yo?hs . . se ny iS xon Seen : WET ge: SHAS et ede Sn Sea ae th a Bee cee Ee Re ESS . ene A aa sehe: wo A Beat eee : “Sp a gy Bete" cet A ee ow er as a : : a he Pee CESARE RRS ik RES 128 gear”. SS BR me teaPee 3S. aOD Sows eee ome Ue Ye SEE, SLR bogs ie (ep SEES. PE yf‘feos toy aRana nemS thor thy . tee tyCr edreWebs ER oFPeSe Lape es . ie sSES — ie Beet oS riMR 24ne aaSCwon ae aeone asgi ARE 2 wngig Sire TO, hye ABS LES Gao SY aR aa ae fin : wf aeAA ae . : a” YR hee ee eee TeaaeSete Ber tee cn Hee s : We Z oe . | 2 ; . oye ey can we ee ot, aha Remesge t oan z le: 1h tera oma a ry BER tag or eee ery wee S . S ata ee ARG gh CR SRS, oo oN oath ERGs © |”. aEES ae cone RESUS Bet? Se :St. Fe Le sid«ee 4a |ss| 4 s oe 7D oF 2“ete 2A . Fone % “ARES Shes MIE Braise RR ce aeNea atSOs eS: caw yes .Se Snme ee BAe SSS, *apeeeecme ‘“ai wae Sete .BES weal areata PEO La ats ”aeotgee comes £;Bsa Se:aAY ees oSoe tee sis ON aaa RES OTE :aeoe vedos aBe fea Be SCP ON) iat RS ool aac 2hnae Oe aehe esBal s t. & Paar : 7Tag vee 22a,Hie anBe Gsee ney eeSs oo esatid Beaty pees Aparen “he eta whe Pe FY eRE eee. Swi ee aiGe cee ide vee | pant Le iERR ee aa Ta 7wc. es we BIG ey igs BA Seen es BAT SE Bee nee TRE Pein pi tates oh ISS leeARE 7 REYES, Seas ee Te: sats eea =7 eS icpay aST oy gu :75”veh 7oa :oBae .ahs Ra:*,Se = S83 NR eeeOR pe ORS ao ‘IPE cls ie Se PES :Ses .nee oo ao NSERC Cae Beppe Bee OR ee [I ."Nae PCE 2oe :ae wie: re SR Bee ated ee he en tobe” . ey ST Be . wn er patty uke SS RR % ee ae Ree Ne ae SPRnS ee Po: : . an i . att i Cet St ies Mee on Notes. R ACG EAS ae ee ES : . Peo, wy sel, : ye Se

Face

ge Reece oeie ,Be .sat Lome RA ne; :saso] : “teOo” Sse “4 OS 3 yea ES petRo Pa ? PR caU Os A (O° anes ase i]SSS ee.arcs ere eT re aries A be | ee

cS oe osPa f)OTE ©‘Sas . ot e e.CD 7ee. tne Se Se RRA beaae rae: en peewee d 4Sod “4 et,eeee LRA ES SE) SrSOS eR aed EROS he Uywat B go" an SeeBE «2 ' tae ER Testy Bie gtrpst. TeoR! EBm7 be, Ee Reser aly Sica :Ne, Ce Na ee aScaa oes: ee our ae 2s Raat Pee PRS foe 5a:.eee .rltai en Ke go Eo RE he’ *.ey fa eas TES eR TOS ak Betad GO yi aays 5Liys Ree Rae SaoS aise: 2 age aaes es | Bad “es . ee xMe Bh. ae pacer: ONES aee AS pareve Resa yea ore! an NE TE ii oa cy hoo} ign RA econ 2S, “tes, NF Set Parte: 53 ee PSR eg Cosh, =38 on bh Papa ue > ENS em ears Cae wr as ee eae 7" Rapes ‘fe aie + RES ose SRRs Een oe. ot IES ea + ay ares“seWins oe Sesh .feet 8 te see ee LoteES : . N.Bato “lS ees‘ is: Ne oe CO” HRS aaa . 1 % a:.-8: :: Be } ae ee Be NS ae . ws . Tee ati Os — tag ep RESO OLR CORSON See pe 3fe a hes ee . ae Oa ho a! : Wrest. -Mgtie o . = ‘: . es we tents ae SIE BR ees ET Beat merrell d os nae Smee oe So Ge ao i SS: | a es ee ea Peo. eg Sie, 1 IE NAS .

2 ; : ’ Bs * an Sant a eee . ae coos SEs a BASS uk BO, Peete Eos seeaaa 2 Re Bie: CaS rs Lies | ia eh en bee ae te aves ei ages \SERS. pans Pe trae re . | SEAHERE ear ec Cae : SOE oes 9 alts Raeave Beat gata mAPn ae a oStee SRISE oe“ree MEE ao Me RES a woe ES aa Sa sesoe EE eas aigBe :9g peak PRAM bs Benes hee, es2BES See )soe eVene ee SEES — Se ais yoy. oft?pe. ai She Re “4ae BeeOe oe"pee Aahhdee O° CPR ESSE, aot. ” gbeciaa yg RS aS hin. RES eSB § ee 3. GATS: ees Rs TA FehaFe ebay ty ose "GRA See ES aee QE , 2mete TD an,wet 5Mek ewtastan eabag Be VRRP S 1)SSok Se A. :

ro | ; poe ee a ae - pm a] et asec Ca FA alae nef SION Be. ms

a: 8SG. oo oS: a ae BS aoa... 5: :isan OO Ey Taeee Bee pe ee iann . ;|\ Rn etBSE oe AS rae . ge oaSSNRC eke AMES ge :eee ee 1 ae SAAS. Sains ah.) RESEe He +Eee ee RN ~ 22 Rae aeee ee ee a> - sees Oe a Fria Bie TE°oy Ng sock MARC “EE Bee 25, ag, TE SERS SSR ee ae Sree Ra, Oe og Oe age ee, DERE RA 8 rage eee ae Se Bt SE ARs agrl. in,Se wea Rios Ba SENSED OSBRe Ugatene |e agneca ir eae aolF. ee poe apeer eesoak | Se oeaSE foeee: ea!Se ora heSEER Bees, ocEile Csee bh? Se nee PSE RELIARR BONE ag" Reed oe NARS Sees eR SeBee Soo Sa ER daca eae‘ :ES oe \RDS: ES RISO OSE SD(Rdg Sige: ONES en See ae RISA ne Vie ee teBeds 2S a:oe Se eS aig Boeke ander: 1ae gate. renee aBe ElSect ee: ORS aeEpes Bae? ae xf Pe een ss ueNG tAS ie we Sa LER Tee TOS rswale Anh es Fgre SRO Soh RSAC, a, | Pe oe : =Se EES SSS Weig +aE SaSRR Sos aa .aha BASS DS oN ear still oo§ Ags pan SERN Se fs nee SONNY ae RENE a:Airbihod eS .REE Leas, Lage OC eee es ao Pen ee ee Ce Soe | sat PERG Pp Ne RS 4, eee; “, Se i : ve gS. aS 8 Stes Soe OE ey, 0g Peg SO ARUN Bee oN Baa Rd en ae ey pi +" 33 Jo meee ee ee e wo NE ge? ed 1 rah + RG SGE RTS ts ot a8 SE eB Ga og PSie REE ROR ere eee SE See ae ae ee aE an ER (a Re ane . Se cipiplenace: Se Ei = i. | Spas SBS Lea RS S eae CE Cea oe a ge ae Be ee Poms. | aes, Si eee ees = wid a a #5 Bie See Sa Be BAC ECE OF SE pes “eh Oe PNG ges rae ES I" Gee | ERIM SS ES: CON a Fy 4 a -. “57 2S aN. eS AS car Aaa aia BOS soo RSE ONE ey . ies tambo Baek weet Roe? 2 ta EERO: yo Fo ein La ag aNd Lae, Shae eran SAGE. BSpcaan Say be Petre i PRESS GS ee AUR Eh A ee. oN LER. eS We ‘a4 ; — SRE BE i: ere ee i ee ae eo ean

Woes. |~eae aut “ RSW be Nery 1 Sa ees | ot,PEE pe” lsSee 2 mee aet Ree = what aise ok DORR geen TB = ee pe aeaeSS aOe&ee eS ae eae ne | eR Sea te oan nee Bere aE oR RS SEOs, OE aosoe resi .Ven Ra ahead Scie FS aCROC eeESky 7En OM SeSEE Ecc, eeB sop ass woth : “a0ee *| pe aceeeiet akin oe be eRe Feet ed Sa Saini cccating: ON 55.5808 RD es ee eats. hase eege NYLassa 3.0 ae :SERS She. OSOg nanBae Tene WON SURG eee PSFae SERRE ated OER ie pgs: eee | t cae eae BSR SEES Aah, Se Ps nec ON igs eee nd Oe PeeRS Ree ure oS Perna yee a OS RMR og Pass gomea nets ots ; ee poner a4 NS yee EE seh es I SRE. Hes dag EASe” AREER REA Nye OpticSOS . SA at ee RSS-eswee. ETS te oyu ot “ate , Eee poy Ly ost ak REEoy ote? a Feeae BEaSERS RE Ee ese Peg aeRiise EAS BBE oT oeeeNeMRE ee. Se : 2eeDASE --GUE eee sea:Sa bale sig rf i2 5. ere re aehsTyEh ARE ee ee gts, og , et4Sankt) oe we Se sone Pee 2 ohDae RAUL PS EAE aE ert tS Weems TS PSSUy verses eye» 5ahyir oan neg rote apeBe Biba ye ag aN 4See ayte SE SPSS i> — Ras aes ARE ane :EE ceeS aers PME dake Peed Laid RES. TE ar arty og . pee eee “Seas pe vane AB ae ee 4 ie ae oye eae isc ag Sia Syeee TIERS ota aean + RMT ae hy ea .ilBa anti eSENSE Ra tas SSS 2Me SS TN ARES aca aotEEE ee SESe os8Bon, Ragas + eee PERSE Aden oe 2 os RR HEISE Pee a ag ce, . ity hcg GS Ute hes Fr a erie. RC eer re ae Eee ates are FMEA CAR ENNIO N CAPS oe ERAT SESSA ag pee Ae: + woth “OO % Te okra BE RE are Rroescatn EHS TH ie ea a 1 NE ee wi St Coe RY-GSSA eS OE em 4 Me ay ARTS ECR ARS SEN SVER RENE Ris Vel alee Sra geeOe aeossth Bes noe fray 2~ NXo RAD aaa! wg -,xDAES BAS Seana aee .eS. eeject Bier es ES i.eeoe 0Pep Demons aeAR ae 05Ns ee -2esAS “ BS Vie gehts USS cae nnxcae TSB bys . “te mae}, BNE BagaR LM 11 Pa Re Pte ENS, geet : Gee oe + CASA aiOe jiTRY, eohentghrannes oa ne wie PL eeter Cake ERRNO Ges Be RETR Po SSace aS RD Rn iaeyet Pee ete etcay aeee. Sago Pye ORC SUR eas “Eee ae tSe inBaa as es Soe 0) NE Gai Ca pee woe ees Soden a pambieseenne TG. Mee SSI Gcgefh SPR SeCe Oe TER eeSES. ae Baie ity 72225. +s, A stsER eae ages BRASS lease AMAT Ber SBR net yO aFontan} Kavarna sabres OES tS*AS ae so SS ARES ar eg ap (ryhae tei SaSa ena neSeagate Beer SMOR AN eeecemanviserans ESRD ay Legs ie POR ESOS ASR Nc cs sa nee oe een pera saes | ARS 1.Eg Sea : Songvet en oN 1 Sgeg bertog CRT eis ase a. aes iy ye ' BA eng 7PROT Nise ag Sees et a INS Noite Rig: heer Vigeneee ANG ysis Saif on aa Bs uk feAt 8TEES gee Ne 2,” TARR ae Fhe eS SEAN epee ane eee BU ORE Cea Lea ESSE RRR RC “SEE on Bio OSs, Cae Pes Bs . Fs : apa EKO S PR BENG REA gee cn I eo 2 Nea S28 Se: Ey S Oe Be ee : OS 7 ge i “2 OE SOS EN eASR SEN OE Oe eae ae i An plete. SeCae Begs yee “oe eke ay *NIN 6,SsSeepeeye. “8 ee Ge Re aecerteee Shea! Coes WaeeeN, ou BSS ane ciae RR ag sin cry ata: Mamma Sear; Bers, fet rie Beka aanca AGG Sei ic: OR Minas «0 Se Care Goel! UO Se oc et oe ee Rec Ne °os6oa Bega Sa ener, AS ait AS Tae om iogaapees ee Sot Ree ee Akoee aeee eg8ee tee, *Me CPA it: SBBAe . . Se eg Bats: 5327 fr bcp estas a oe yegeesee 72eek Sesto HE ORES RAST GR Oe ae PRS aS4 BO ne cSaET RN E35 ER Oe ene . OBO ES ShSe octeeag eg Bees aease rset. nates Sie BEERS aaOIE eRe raee notes eae 7ot ars PA Eee oaBEN Sa .MES, :.RR BOCA Stan Ses SEPALS Re se ieo'ALE SRST peRASS Sea pA AOR Becnn Bepeggee GER tT2 wg fires wee ay ce Pees See POR 3 ey GER ret hoa BRE Ba, Se AES SNe eaters OSA RALH Beanie aoeree SREAE GSES UE CAAA BRC Seat feSa fe RUE RO CNSVee eas oe USPRS MEE 2NUSk | es WyCE ike SarVee at eee te cra SER 527ae: Ra Fat Ae Pe ESS SO Re TS Warde, ag Fag SS NE ee tl=8, PES apeee AB Boceesies SWANSEA ESO a ae PEee WC Seg G esa Od aaa aoeCMU SESE Re NSP asda Le Sane’ 8" 9SbSkee wang a: coNSN ee Le

SES aie SRNDES ae ooSah PBRSGA terse VARS nay hoe roe oe Eee genta etree ve Oe Se Hea th een at ES97 SESS ASR Er IeFRR Pe ae BTL tS Re SSUES Rae ea adel Fatae CAME Teecettp ATRpsa oi Soak A eeegt A hg RRheS Sees et aetanec SBS SseeRe? ESSN eaeee sere ETAosart PR ALU Set: Dewdey a eran eee emets Beasafew Vu aioe ats Tie 2 Ieae aa eoSSUES See Se eae cmeeR oopiiGBR AY SES, opeReset. teinPee ta aeAMEE. HRS HERS Pin es | ER S18 CUE meee cor gd Oa REN Sevoaeeaee his EOE TG Wes Ae Soa! ” ees ON dee see Br aR erAeae be eee eS VOR heat Rae SEES Ee NES ieEn aSeetare PE SSE oeCera Le NN Ae oe Oe EON er TR eepee wa UBS RRR. AD genie Ree eeed Ceo Ean oes Skee td rea mp ETE tat Sere art fone SO AGBERG Ey NaeS Agee pet ay eA rat Seneca ee NEES EAS SENT eae ai Ry ON SAE Egtaatts PLAS Ga E Eats BRS aairae eaeoor Sayed Paeosoe a ae Pees Rey Yeu ae Sete yeLAr ARE AE 1rae, OO CTBOP 5eet SONAR Sex EP SSE SRST ae xs PLS gn HeMR peeneeSya Rate : Re ge eee Sete Tate ae ARS SS oo oe aee-re oe Spee ce SS AER atenaly 1REN URES DR TUNIS AE el os ee SE Cine CONE MRC 95NESEY RR IAES ed Pee ian hac gies Ie ai aPeet Pee BREE a eee tn AGN, RA age naegece SeesOtte eTeeRetebgat Ree SS MR es “URS _KER RRA ONO ah cane ean es ARR Boece ane ati Sea UVES Beit) “Fn SER See ¢ ARERR ES iyBS, eee eye etBie Pe ahSOE VE Leaa BERTHS Sia ULeae PERT eh raEnte ete. ytSe RyEC SS ERG Ban Keaye atES sat BSUS RE ere Ty beers Rene Wr WGA DE we eth VNR eS Peet A RPA ety te Steed ee ee Ae Chee one 5inae se a coe RE ae eae ee aee oe oeeas: eT oeiepeas oe oe Rea fo emia heat 2.1 Vo PaTET (IHS gS Sty WIE yb Pere Pp, seNSSa no Roy BEES tte Capac eae.PM Reece SCAR Seton PLEA aalgeaBee SERA oh eSiL Rant ONG Bee fe Le AEs ’...nT a aheee : : a ee SURE SAMBA GIN Yt SORE ReE a 6. Raney y a REPRE eetMR SMES (ESS ee eetoa oS ‘ee wi Be :tgi:SC ote anBEE. Se2 RSae side, ease Sy aa mae : one it . OS oe SCN ee aSL ee iee Bo ECS ols ie,oosae’ .miSe SRE ae 2Pea ee ae ae Co ||EN Sees 'tice ee mot :Pag oc |aees ie: esBes ;as at . TEE a cn oe eeBake St MRGrea) i RO "aes TORE a EES Fae", ns Cr ae se :. oS § ,\i oe tab th L = cet . Yi: ot oe

PURNER ORSINI easwey OF f .yoo nen :“oes i mel os 4Mo t 4 ee eth BME oes ~ yg PES Une i eaeOSmy : i e :: : oan to or , Bs : }a re yee To Ra aa

os .ic, , SN “iy on poe noo woo 4._ Tes :oo:: ane toon . . rnmen, : ree 4ae ate negeet wane Be ye iYS oeBee oSPe ae Pith SC i, ve ae ws. ad :wee! wk ..esiB Nod SEATS cgheeeaty op OT cae e ae POSS BM aeOy RoR ‘ voureh ptr y Bale es “Ra, REP Deyiewed BENS SESS ee CN UMMM ot Tea ORR ew ‘ate rn\ arnt ae ‘ Ph hes eancor 'Sa ; oe OL ALS risa moe BaPS UTUESR RS, Bee CYie

Me A eee. Fe, SESE OO ieee et =)

mB “ff eas AN*eeSok ‘ Vee ae.ny se teehee nee . an mn- ear Bese : aa. L. SEP ee aeWe reata,wg BANS qs rea “aS “Mot saben reat sryZé. sein weOS oY ME . oor.§ 71 .rcs paren)

or -.an“ly. “x ht LD OLe® Se DN ey Beet eee) ‘] bo a. Sf MR Sh ABie Qs;reot 3Pe4°|Scyte 4I -Bea ee a ORR aREFG nee ‘=eBEE 4jetripepcemeompermy one ESC SER geet Ptveda “ene! eee ee a em oe. eek: \ a PRR TE et ENG 2s, meant vey 7 eee aes . es oa ee See a OO OR od Be am

wee aePi) —Src sheen NSS» .aemee LF RSE RY~tg0 aah co BMG Soe we ed ime oe UAa PRS URES Rg CML CeSees t - .2a a REE eaten ceeCee aes Be NSSes he ephe algPINE pak, ay a : fooae. es. wey 8Se4]XEa ransSigs aON § ay ae . -4 .fay SetBes %e See wend a biSon segean ahsene Dire? bemne 2VA Aes upet ~~ Ba my" eee BS

RAG TE ene Seat coy a. onCan ‘ne. OTN OS Renae PSEA Lae iat“ee ‘ee yt ze 'Egat Via ge oy -akRhy ~. %ao,EE . 5‘yoon. ae PAS .Wren wy2hRe as a aeons Sead eotes tty Soeeeuee: " “eg 7aaoe éyeSgt “atten .snd . IEA ¢RRR on| :PSS BNA ann Gute! Milt ee ac +) Saeco Rages? 4Me cae 2\ LIND ersS : Losi. GARE BSc gfggB sARS BOS . PERE, a ssDts A? Ree ae? ve 2 ne eae Shy a eeoye 1 ow SE(Ra ga hsace ae, omer #we oe . ah Ba Ae Roe2 aDeS RY*eR 5 wesmeet ee Shien soaA Ed, oe u

GER SM BO EERE: RRA ee BNI ie TGEsEs aseee Goh ee paca eee PROreae EE - i.esx1 TSE” MEARE Le oe eeame VEae sOBR EAA BESET eeemere : . Bor, : eteoneness a ES Se-REE Perc | eer wy Sets Be eee Res sy ase 6D, “es ees i1 4 par” RM RELLL TStOwo a .RR RCO akea: vv aa on ers oe, ie SO ‘> Ue Ww

bs ea a “ea Vie Bea a te PRS i TY oe LAD P v - -: tN? x ‘ =f eS : % We men eo ee:.OS, . Ves saebdeetecae Om mies * wey, ot RN. AUDBamathe bieetctVQ * o: Soh se 2 a 185SES ssc: 4Re Boe :RS eo.;aS UR JoTIT . “es emmy es aoe daetans Tess MiLODAST: 7 le i ‘c, Boerne. ea: eek on,6), ee ene enn age 095 es. SAS Oe SUSE. Og. SEae en ee ee LS S00 (ne esieBERNE WAGERS gonoS ft Be ac Ee iatek} Rtass alec uh soe RieReed ROR. eae hes Yaa

oe Se ~My ea aTONS ieSoeReeK) 7TONES Ts oa, ° Oe no me.7 og ogaes Ss23 AMIR” eae SE nage ea ”s “tosto =e Bie y ‘ss VN Re aug 2 oe” ene A Teas VRE a es ras i ae SERRE ace,PAE Vests St TR Ug. ESET Be. OB eee a” SNORE a Sane Neate5igs ERE Eg ¥Fe SR ae eka : a Zs : a: SED ey ger, FL t Ere Ca Bn. 39aeSee , egy oscee ae 4 —

SS ee Soot | RRS tee NE ee an Ss or AM NR! Kee

Bee eran ee SCTE Beg leERROR esUC uy Ts BEaes eat Eee tere Lk REO Md) SEER is“ eg edES OS URE, aR8S) iosSBE Re eeage ES+Paes £[er kat CEC ‘ ey = a Caan an| BR RE SS ee aacce Nhe IEEe ETE PSS RS,vais IE SSae Wega RAGS Fe (EERE SNE + PGES EO Eee ERR aese 2 SE Meco Re. Re. ae ee - ehE, Lecco eer 5th dgRRR BERR m—YN +

7we 4.pe ws og TET Lagi ERB.) aSudmies, 2 SUR Of ag ge eh -ised TR.lg: ie geo :: ™, aie ee. { Secours CRESS «CR er oRsge Sie ee aencOE eR eae ~ 5 cD) .* P eoBRR IBeaspe Bins URES. homie ao AR oe¥8as OUaa eee eb eBae me a Ren eh ctRaia hee ORME MOREL ie ace NC POR 5 RE Coho 5rete gicraed can Pome ah ERED ul to aa Mia ge .PeIES ME ORS GN LED. RMI CLUE CiEU rare SON 6Hy, Ba. Be .On i oe eee ogo SpecseapSaes ee Dare ec Hey a anna aes Be BE eu HSER BRNO BNC” Se RRR no . oo a “oh Mg #a‘3ee ON oe Rae5ERS by os oS ed aaae Seal ees wstes gad ER OUI C8 RIMES OS OREE e page Toe =ne wee BBR ead ioe “4PoceceN | EEO OR Tee GRE CLR Oey ¢SO

eS : OD) * ‘3:‘at :ae ee BENS, MMII CET V0 UL, Bis bia pg a ‘ OD) 4“ee | TS ee Be bas 3 . 5 ‘fhe Ua sie ere yg vee I: .f*}:i .BR } ; Hee i aes i H : x RRR see pe EE . ve ~é. ™ sys 2 NS 1g I. rime obi ST gs Se . “ Beer Se MM gee ar 0 are Ceca bela Ba YN ee ee . ~¢€ () |

, . Pa 2. oy saeME ws ae: cc eee meng BSEo aAT etCESS ee ge :‘erent % 2aa Pn ome? ae &© ee :ifle gee eae e * tly Becsuer >oan me PRS E CIRO Naeae APNE PIE ::abe ; Sy [ree | B Se RCNA : -* © ae os nn RSS ae Me R See as ; .Tke Se yee j 3 ] Baa bE a ON ae Saree “gee + Sere. ‘ ms Sa rors : ss alesis bay te CRORE xs Morey Lt te OEE t Fe coca 7 4 . Beer tiga Tiere rem og «Seeing C7" Se eS ON RO a OE ee 5 ca’ ~~ nif SES CPBar URSA NEEL Op SR DES ooebMt ds BER 2 tA PRG RTSS 87Roa) A La 3S . betes oF: a0ee ees Qt seme Sgeee . wg REDS eect Shy EE EI SRM a Sv abrae) TNan rn pone here se BREN OT Be| Be Bees RAS ge EES Beet dar RES elaee ;tame gee ae .oe ‘ agg BRS SHRBEEE RE eats SORE, Re eee Eee og OS a rae rts eeSES eae) a oy 5 DEERE 4ca 8 ene Sc ines (Site bps ar ESMOND een he 2 Re Bote ns ie TEE a4 ay es A ARE ewes es fo % >. ra we. BSEE UW TS Eo a eee! oo mo .Aaa f°3:Bees’ aS “eoehs se,ina a3REG) SS eer ey Somxe) onSe }. : yee, BS: SB weEE Btee Phale ee Ea TH (iheay | eae Be.i fas) 2ieom Cpy a:34Set ¢ aeSs RE bie: gt TEU he eaa .: Se ttsF“ee (eeaanS oe toa CEST NASM DU SUE SE sxe Siane eee 1 :Re Same oD) Sas |SBERRAR SURES CMM PORT RE oeress eo. . aaa ; bests “a, 7 Bey OS JA0tye UP 4 BEB aBee - seu eat! al.ae Rats. RD :og 4 i ae) sot LF 313 okaft Ol [Bl EsCer Leena pel re etyaMJ ate iad|.ee : ia = 1@) wt : Co os RS es a ee oe 7 . : “ 4 — Re ee uae CSE | oR ee oe viele Rees, ot ae cD) Y ee: . ae er pede ess.| phe 1 gba, peteoT hotsbe | Bae treSaar Oeee Qiheees 32 eetie No:4 a:“OD iM ae p fers fe oo SPORE: 0 es = EE RE © ES Ss Be ait Sy . 3 i SN r— ae °. bP “ney: BRRSGRES osSEE oRecre re iees oeYeap _ Yom ene i teases Creat ghee a 6 nr A hn on H re §Sal “gerne Bd Es wast BRE Be PAR Eo ce Bee Serge tees yo :3OF aye 4: apts woe iaie SMESSEE a‘Aas SEZ SERA. pete ERS teBae Ba 5ee near BACKS e EL ty eae. Be pts ; 4 : a | ee eee qe i} Rhee LAE, ee oh Skt ene 5 : Oy Pe) fae) ( ) 2; cies cs 3 ‘i nat Tr Se te ee, > RES 2 eA ote OE se NAS a Bel f ‘1,4PE i]SRE aS So CoRR teUp ERT Bes eae oR, .tathee" .Fi :ati atviet eo mee OPS ge Pe Re stein Ope eee tote ah, No: >» teia Nee ~ee eres Lees fee Key oe, ee eeee ee er Tei! aeere Vey : aS “ie epEEESORS IL Beget yRe -eee Ree aN: RSet oSrae #teh Re Seon Soot: gel Soa) Ek os UR Ree EE EN oe Re ea ;:oe arag va BES REE Seta eh ee er 2eer ;Peas ci,has On tg A om ig steerer, PY TS: ; DMRS Sos ces EESESRGs | PUR AS ad dee eta eee Sth SESE, SUS GU Se er . 1p CRS eR

: . cere Bee , mA * . Sey BE ay aS , re) (a 3of Lee SRE RRS » Boy . ee xFi fe NO Baan oo He Bakes orgs . . Bers, . . : . ..a-:s:fow # RO a Bars . e . . n | te os pa Ka oy ar) ae ae een REN 3 a a sf a PRESS f aes ° a e oy ed ee ? i TED RRS he Ra, ee eect. LO - 1 cP) Ooms “ . H eae 8 fee aa oS SS eg Bie Oy Rpsee eee eee i BMRA 8350527 %* ng . ae)

Loe UB Mere on? - Be . wets oh Kies PBSEL:, ee Cask eRe aeeeer HRS as phJ of 4age ; :peered Syene Aaeoe th ESE areBes BSP SERA hoe ee oeSe fsoe Bees §DRE . Ee :£aeas etBe PRane Bana: Pe cae aie SR ks = 5 :iaSa fatto sy,Bie a ry :PBs. 8are Rigi oo eS A one To *eee rao: Mae Sere ATE SSO AS a ee: ea NM arena -- ee 3: aOS $ hey 8 i”cte ay petal’ saa Bees teraa Zaors Sty Th, Pl a pen gee:eoPo: anJ£atten sen veeene j : SOBER See BERN EEA SEES") TRESS SEL eR YN? a okpA eeRSS a CeHi fast Tee | Weer BSS. RII ACC AN .‘* Ce. gie

ieFSET eae< Pee a ieg Oe re 2RB Paget 4 ies Eee oe fee aan ss oe : up ftihegs SE OEE CUOOS Canals fae. see naa ae REESE BI Be age ae ein, ge) OE cel as pee Re Bs TO aee Ree ° : .0aaee PRSSeay Oe OMENS aie ones be Selah OER ES2 GP ge pe IE PMc” Be eee eke 7|Reece | Coie o's, Wi St gi og fs SaS pemea 7bd : Ae Org eee: ° ERS BRE Ah PRES pe ers eye are aeFREE ae is ener ctse eee - eR =ine See : ; chi . eae et ry 2 = p Yes a ae BS te ee. Sars SOLON eer oe Yk se i : AE “ “sey : EEA Oe: 118 See RG Regt Reames 3S) °° Shean ee Ics We, fo, ie -: .: -ay :5.GDL? ae |< ears atSb Fann oeCe raeeaaaeae era EEN oP cgheneen 4,eee we os . 7-“PERE, eee Sinem MOSS: ECAP ROY cena 4 FOG. Rae re Se eeaa amt eka7(S7, “a 7 sashes waSSE ry SE SME ” Pi RRS et ee zh .Bet ee eee URIBE Or eS Sg Roce fades NG EB PS SARA EE! POINTS ;ath ; “be ag Sere TER PRE cenoree aoe ' Beg See HSS eey eRe WEpeat PES ames—— cD) pagar P Il ONES ear FOB, 5aeoe BA PES i “ind eee ge ieee, , wagpant: Scene eS cata wey : ENS ie. eae DASE itee— uw pf, 2 RSS atsead SAME oS leg BAS ce: Be : ' eae ae ., ce REE es weer RRR ee ie BR pete ERS . . . Lo : * RIFE : (ep) ot ESR Ra a EES 1h ER Ree aE OSE ERR Sy SRRRERES RE. : a , # Sire! tp SESE EC tee le eeeanaSE eee CsRcerene eR eecena RT MES . MRE - Be ee RESETS ceeee Way "SRST ae aN ee aR EA ae Se ;Creer a" Ee : red ep ay Soeiee OMEN SAE aScee MED glMESS ro. aS | Bi Bos : |

Pt / ne “even Be ee Pathe ee ES meee yen tie SAN Ot Sy 5 a BES ; Oo en eee Tere a: eae 1We SOI aeEEN es, RMS a“Sl :.aminlns i:ee. eeR soe “ae eco eeag :Ee pee.ET ; : aECE Sateen ees REPRE Ci EE Bo ee .rad ; FOS eEENCommacw+ =

o* a -

a“sgh aORT eg Te ge - Meng PELE IAee See TS Be peta eersega’ Big| OS. ME vPee Raooy .3_Laer ‘B PER aeee ages vats Rock gated GeO ek) Bo, Cee a ee ee TE ee 8yg“aid nee} Pemeg §a oye SS te meee aie. Od ro 28 a Rie Roy RE Pea ‘REE TES eg apap Ae. q “ ee See Gl Ree Paar een aS Ray F Pers i> re gene eLearn yee SE

aes CS U2 emgptice SS igen, Mn Ley ob pasgy SAGE Wd. 1 RSaeos# MARS ong ZS. “SyFe tix ORR Tee, ORS: EOD Dean i;5 8Ma es- amyn pS eeEU Sehkee. ede de

[ee 8s SSSI EA RY. 2sfaa SS LORS ES Was4 "sage . BePeed te ag)gy Sea ainOPENS OS aaaRE otAY Dagan ayeHie ieee SRS deeb acy GPE wea, > ae 5 alle “eeWilts deer Ph... SER Oe a es) : 8

aeaets seSORRY as Lire:SAOS ame peed. pSE SRS! Gg BS SESS CigTae Nec,ey ati ieghi mite 2 ea ed lS “ ela ere er PS SEEMED PRESS IY SESS Se a

Ces fe: aaeaoe ee eke Ee 2 eee, Cc Ae eg BoeTc ates eis ogsaea aSooee ae ei Regt a Me oeSa oakoasder oR S&S2 Bees ae ee oA eS ae or. OS ae po LES Sen emepecte ge ob ve Baa oot BREE Byrd ets Bek

TES REake POAT ee an PE a3 ae ERE ERNIE 8 Soe ce ee ais OPP38UNS Be as om “eae ge oR Bees. Vee OeYEA? are SOM ae ae oe RR SENOS

Rs7otSina SR Mae etaE: ese PSEA Ae Be Seco eet RS WERE le I 2USGS amen: : ” i ;tg. eS Ma enices + fee Sameera EES RENE een a me race 4 . SB Bieoe bl RN SER ENG BESS PGES: rae Rte ERBo OG _ PE er MOEN SESE Y— . ee eS NS Ns See Gpekebtleht SETS ere 280 SS i SU es Ce SEA Ce TOSOY Ce Se EE s ESS

see = ae |m2 Lebeoeeee ee iee Fe leeeee, 5oeeeee od abo ee ae ee ee SS BR ree Oe. ea ee Yea se. Se ~. MPBRENS. ON Sco,er Re ROSaages ad Sy PEER ABB >os Baerioe dSAS SRC CES Seth Gd SORES” Bees oa ees |gM ae Ae PRES TERE CTR SA 2aSSR SREP icse REE 7WANK I aE a oe mae CRT oe8sRINE ee reras Pee .oe : * |eeae i eet WE es Seheg PTREa Tata Saat 2LES I UAT okoe GRehs, ARO ae Earned Mae eRRA oteASS ra S76 be oD wast: “AG ae =ne FR AE AEN BENENSON A ce Cee & :“sae. Setig 0Bo a[RL ance PBS ges Si |ee? “ete NER MN ek PeRENN LORS SE ec HS aon

: me 8.7 SRO ESD eae So Se asec ae a foniod * ss a E ee aan “Seaege, SE yes of aes ecm Pe a aoe nae ee cent Ee ree An Sane Cet eS Se gE RRS oe as os ;t age ESthse Seren Rea RUNES: SEAS ee ERP GB SS. ote ee.8 HancniGee Re AN jae PareOBES, eg Deaeee Bes 4 he Dee Ri ay eee rene Kis erase eat a ppc Ce eaeke ORE Bet |ee age ee A Ses aeah Fosawn dee SRE pe " MeN SeSeenm € G5alan ponent ina Sexe” USEPRS ee eae

ane 7 anni “ F i ek ee ert eo eo aS RNG AREAS Se Le eee

1 . amas gh A Pit Bs RRR ERR G7. A(ait oheee SOAS ener ONG penta OSES) So eae + J i Baie: Cpa oe oe Oa Maen pice? SRBE. SUR 6 nk 5 ee» Se Po ORR an ee 3or as ee anTas aad ees ee Be a Ray ye : Ls “s hageig EAREN eee: ekaaoean «SeceOy OS a eswr Si seme: ie MA NE BERD “Doe BSED eer: sake Soe AR US > BIAS Cae|os yee °MCLE Cs eee Peas, yer a geSee BOE SSE Aes Baie ae aa ima ‘ BE “setBef Moslt eSS. Fe On SoeEee nTee BN MSnee ACs Sen SeAE SLY sh aVege DESO eet :AE * ie eee ve PEGS | QeNige +: Geses AY ops Riis RTO REE OSE Re SS RRO See NS: eee ze’. 1 ERS fea Bag IR ai ectongge pe ys I RES Seat

PR CRN | ae «> ae epee. EE + seme FX ee

PET s pedeer, «SEE Nips a Bn SREP ERO i asae ee ON. SSeS ees eae oa va ~* gas ee So MRERNERLIS petits { rae SR 2 pee a, MS URE BtaRRR”. tasore SeAte Eeoe ‘Ke SER OEM ceerSIE WBETa a BLS Te PE db eae kcadsteae Shag2s cme I REMI ORNS Os Bees ey, Se NY ES 6 SRP DantesRR Tg bee Eoanaes eat See

WS cs DANA TResSieg eee ER Sa MRS Apes ce barks Bn BATA ee an Es SAS ae ee Je Re VS Pre oe eee TE EE Ate pes ead =a PRES ees SES. aEROT NEG BART ERO Vos Bae, Lae

nds ORES a a Re aaaSA! ie csNOR ee